Waterman v. Graham
| Decision Date | 12 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69-41,69-41 |
| Citation | 228 So.2d 925 |
| Parties | Herman B. WATERMAN, Appellant, v. Donald W. GRAHAM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter E. Warren, of Warren & Warren, Leesburg, for appellant.
Richmond W. Rucker, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee.
Herman B. Waterman, plaintiff in this trip and fall negligence action, brings his appeal from the final judgment entered herein upon a directed verdict in favor of appellee, Donald W. Graham. We reverse.
At the time of the accident Waterman was temporarily residing on the premises of Graham; and the crux of the case is whether, at the time of the accident, Waterman was an invitee or a mere licensee. Appellee concedes that the trial judge based the directed verdict on his conclusion that Waterman was a licensee and that therefore, Graham, the owner of the premises, had merely the duty to protect Waterman from wanton negligence or wilful misconduct. 1 If the trial judge was correct, and Waterman was in fact a licensee, then we would agree that from the evidence adduced, and bearing on the circumstances of the accident, a directed verdict was proper. However, considering the evidence bearing on the relationship of the parties, in the light most favorable to the appellee-landowner as we must do in the present posture of the case, we think that as a matter of law appellant Waterman was an invitee. Consequently, Graham owed Waterman a higher duty than would be owed if the latter were a mere licensee. 2
Only two witnesses testified at the trial, that is to say, the two parties to the action. It undisputedly appears that Graham was a building contractor living in Altoona, Florida, and Waterman was a carpenter living in Casselberry, Florida, more than fifty miles away. About a week prior to the accident, Graham sought out Waterman and asked Waterman if he would work for him as his carpenter for hourly wages. The job site was a considerable distance from Waterman's residence but fairly close to Graham's. Waterman had been having difficulty with his car and was reluctant to accept the employment because of the resultant transportation problems. Graham admits that because of Waterman's car problems he 'invited' Waterman to stay, rent-free during employment, in an apartment in the rear of his home premises so that Waterman could be nearer to the job site. With these living arrangements for Waterman having been agreed to, an employment contract was thereafter entered into. It is further undisputed that on the date of the accident Waterman was on the premises pursuant to the foregoing arrangement, although at the precise hour of the accident he was 'off duty.'
We think, from the foregoing facts, that Waterman was clearly an invitee. The law of this state was announced by our Supreme Court in McNulty v. Hurley. 3 In that case the court cited with approval, and relief upon, the holding in Cowart v. Meeks 4 in which the Texas court outlined the test to determine whether a person is an invitee or a licensee, saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittman v. Volusia County
...are known or should be known to the owner, but which are not known to the plaintiff.' (emphasis supplied in original.) Waterman v. Graham, 228 So.2d 925 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); see also Standard Jury Instruction 3.5(f). We think this statement of the rule suggests that in some circumstances the ......
-
Lewis v. U.S.
...possessor of land, even where the danger is known to the invitee or is obvious. The district court cited Waterman v. Graham, 228 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 2nd Dist.Ct.App. 1969) for the rule that a "landowner owed a duty to the invitee to 'use ordinary care in keeping premises in reasonably safe......
-
Stewart v. Boho, Inc.
...to warn of latent or concealed dangers which are known or should be known to the owner and not known to the invitee. Waterman v. Graham, 228 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert. den. 237 So.2d 538 (1970). Where the danger is obvious and apparent or the invitee otherwise has knowledge of the ......
-
Zambito v. Southland Recreation Enterprises, Inc., 79-1596
...of latent or concealed perils which are known or should be known to the owner, but which are not known to the invitee. Waterman v. Graham, 228 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Although Florida courts have traditionally adhered to the rule that a business invitee's equal or superior knowledge o......