ALVIN FISCHER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1979-12-13
No. 55703
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
379 So. 2d 947 Florida Supreme Court (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Fischer, owner of a public entertainment facility, challenged a Florida statute requiring outward-opening doors in such buildings as unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute against equal protection and cruel-and-unusual-punishment challenges.


Holding

The statute does not violate equal protection because the classification of public entertainment facilities is rationally related to the legitimate legislative objective of public safety in emergency situations. The third-degree felony penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment given the serious consequences that could result from non-compliance.


Headnotes

[1] A statute requiring doors of public entertainment buildings to open outwardly is rationally related to the objective of public safety by facilitating crowd escape in emer…

[2] The legislature is not required to treat all types of establishments identically when enacting safety regulations, even if they share some characteristics.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“The classification scheme appears to this Court to rest upon differences fairly and substantially related to the object of the legislation.”

Establishes the rational basis standard applied to the equal protection challenge and the Court's conclusion that the classification was valid.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Alvin Fischer owned a public entertainment facility and was charged with violating section 823.06, Florida Statutes, which requires all doors of build…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
OVERTON, Justice.

OVERTON, Justice.

Petitioner, by a writ of certiorari, requests review of a circuit court’s order upholding the constitutionality of section 823.-06, Florida Statutes (1977). The statute requires that all doors of buildings used for public entertainment must open outwardly.1 We have jurisdiction.2

Petitioner, Alvin Fischer, is the owner of a public entertainment facility. He was charged by information with failing to have the doors of his establishment open outwards, a third degree felony under section 823.06. Petitioner alleged at trial that the statute was unconstitutional on two grounds.

Petitioner first contends that the statutory classification of buildings used for public entertainment was invidiously discriminatory, thus violating the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause. The statute is alleged to be irrational in that it applies only to places of public entertainment while imposing no criminal sanctions for a similar condition in a department store, office building, or other establishment predictably subject to large crowds and high population density.

The classification scheme appears to this Court to rest upon differences fairly and substantially related to the object of the legislation. Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1978); Gammon v. Cobb, 335 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1976). The owners of public entertainment facilities are required to provide doors which open outwardly to facilitate the escape of large crowds in an emergency situation such as a fire. There can be no argument that an outward opening door is the safer exit under emergency conditions; the statutory requirement is rationally related to the objective of public safety. The legislature has deemed application of this safety requirement to public entertainment facilities more important than to other types of establishments. The characteristics of public entertainment facilities in terms of crowd size and density are not identical to other types of facilities; the legislature is not forced to treat them as equivalents. Ridaught v. Division of Highway Patrol, 314 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1975). The special burden imposed by such classification is not invidious or arbitrary.

Petitioner further alleges that a felony sanction is too drastic a penalty to be imposed for the incorrect positioning of a door, and as such it constitutes an eighth amendment violation as cruel and unusual punishment. We find that the statutory penalty of third-degree felony for this offense is not cruel and unusual punishment. Cognizant of the tragic consequences which might arise in the event of a fire or other emergency in a place of public entertainment were the statute not complied with, the legislature has provided those sanctions it feels appropriate to ensure compliance.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . All buildings erected in this state for theatrical, operatic, or other public entertainments of whatsoever kind shall be so constructed that the shutters to all entrances to said building shall open outwardly and be so arranged as to readily allow any person inside said building to escape therefrom in case of fire or other accident. Any owner, manager, lessee, or other person having charge of any public building for the use expressed herein who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084.

. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Brewster Phosphates v. State, 444 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
    …fferent from the phosphate mining industry. The equal protection clause does not prohibit the creation of regulatory classifications which are based on differing degrees of harm or risk of harm arising from the classified activity. Fischer v. State, 379 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1979). In the fourth point raised by appellants, they argue that the Commission’s implicit finding, that the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the designation do not outweigh the associated costs,7 is a finding not supported by c…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw