Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, GG-481
| Decision Date | 04 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. GG-481,GG-481 |
| Citation | 358 So.2d 123 |
| Parties | VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, D. Frank Palmieri and Carmela Palmieri, his wife, Appellants, v. Charles CONWAY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert K. Rouse, Jr., of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Daytona Beach, for appellants.
Paul R. Stern of Stern, LaRue & Wells, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Appellants were found by the jury below to be 15% negligent in an accident which occurred when appellee, a housepainter, fell off a ladder as he painted appellants' house. Appellants argue that the evidence was legally insufficient to be presented to the jury and that the court erred in not directing a verdict. We agree and reverse.
Appellee testified that Mrs. Palmieri, complaining about his untidiness, had hosed down the driveway two times in the morning of the accident. He stated that he had moved the ladder a number of times as he worked around the north part of the house, and just before the fall had placed it on a wet part of the driveway surface. Plaintiff's expert testified that hosing down the driveway could have "reduced the coefficient of friction" to the point at which the ladder essentially lost its traction and gave way. The jury apparently believed that the hosing was at least in part responsible for the accident. Appellants argue that appellee admitted he saw Mrs. Palmieri hose the driveway and himself placed the ladder on the wet surface.
It is well settled that a defendant's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee in order to create a duty to warn of dangers unknown to the plaintiff. Somers v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co., 89-2542
...by failing to warn of the dangerousness of the equipment or of the appropriate method by which to move it. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company et al. v. Conway, (D.C.A. 1) 358 So.2d 123; Westchester EXXON v. Valdes, (D.C.A. 3) 524 So.2d 452. Further, the evidence shows that the acts of the Pla......
-
Cassel v. Price
...for defendant affirmed, landlord not liable to tenant in possession for gas explosion in apartment); Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), (jury verdict for plaintiff reversed, no foreseeability of creating a dangerous condition.)Of course, during th......
-
Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...knowledge was equal with that of the defendants"); Ball v. Ates , 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (citing Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway , 358 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and affirming grant of directed verdict for defendant, stating "rule is that a defendant's knowledge of danger m......
-
Alegre v. Shurkey
...Blackburn which persevere in applying no-duty, e. g., Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), all serve to reinforce my belief. 6 Unless, however, no-duty re......