RIGUARD COLON, APPELLANT,
v.
SERAFÍN LARA AND CARMEN LARA, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
A tenant injured when slipping in a bathtub and striking a glass shower door appeals a summary judgment in favor of his landlords. The court affirmed, holding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the landlords' duty to warn of latent defects, as the tenant presented no evidence about the door's composition or any fraud or concealment by the landlords.
The court held that no genuine issue of material fact was presented and that the landlords were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court found that where a landlord has surrendered entire possession and control of the premises to the tenant and no fraud or concealment is shown, the landlord is not liable for tenant injuries.
[1] Summary judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[2] A non-moving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by raising purely speculative issues or paper issues not supported by evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A party cannot forestall the granting of relief on motion for summary judgment by raising purely paper issues.”
Establishes that a non-moving party must present actual evidence of factual disputes, not merely speculative claims, to defeat summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiguard Colon was a tenant in a residence leased from the Laras. The residence was constructed in 1960 and purchased by the Laras in 1973. Colon slipp…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Tenant, Riguard Colon, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellees (landlords) in this action to recover for injuries sustained when he slipped in the bath tub and his arm hit the shower enclosure door so that the glass shattered. Appellant has lost partial use of his left hand. Mr. Colon was a tenant in the residence leased from the Laras, appellees. We affirm.
Appellant contends that issues of fact remained to be decided concerning the landlords’ obligation to comply with the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. § 83.40, Fla.Stat. (1975). He contends that the landlords violated their duty to warn of latent defects in the construction of the shower door. Summary judgment is properly rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . . ” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). In considering the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, and depositions contained in this file, the court was required to determine whether the issues raised were genuine or were merely speculative.
The facts disclosed that the residence was constructed in 1960 and purchased by the Laras in 1973. They leased an apartment1 to the tenant with whom appellant lived at the time of the incident. No complaints about the shower doors had ever been received. After the incident, the broken door was stored and then disposed of or destroyed. No evidence of the nature of its composition was presented to the trial court.
A party cannot forestall the granting of relief on motion for summary judgment by raising purely paper issues. Reflex, N.V. v. Umet Trust, 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
On a motion for summary judgment after the movant initially demonstrates the non-existence of factual issues, the non-moving party must make a showing, aside from his pleadings, that a fact issue can be generated, unless the undisputed facts would not entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law.
Soper v. Stine, 184 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). A summary final judgment is proper when a movant sustains the burden of proving the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); e. g. Ultra Marine Corp. v. Bryant, 375 So. 2d 613 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Since no genuine issue of material fact was presented, and the trial court could only speculate as to the composition of the shower door, appellees were entitled as a matter of law to summary judgment in their favor. Wentz v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co., 254 So. 2d 368 (Fla.3d DCA 1971).
It is well-established law that where the landlord has surrendered the entire possession and control of the premises to the tenant and where no fraud or concealment by the landlord is shown, the landlord is not liable for injuries to either tenant or third person. Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141, 25 So. 2d 205 (1946); Wingard v. McDonald, 348 So. 2d 573 (Fla.lst DCA 1977). Appellants presented the court with no evidence that would present any genuine issue of material fact that any fraud or concealment occurred.
Affirmed.
. The tenant actually rented a one -family house, designated an apartment because of its proximity to another house on the same lot belonging to the Laras, which was divided into apartments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Stolzenberg v. Forte Towers S., Inc., 430 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…usal is unsupported by the record and is contradicted by the exclusive use provisions contained in the lease. Once Forte Towers surrendered possession and control of the premises, it was no longer liable for injuries to third persons, Colon v. Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), as a matter of law. See Friedman v. Virginia Metal Products Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (1952). Appellant maintains that her affidavit raised issues of fact as to whether Forte Towers fully surrendered possession to Mada’n. In the aff…
-
Grier v. Bankers Land Co. & The Shaker Corp., Inc., 539 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…section at a speed in excess of forty-five miles per hour. Thus, no real or genuine factual issue existed. It is at best a so-called “paper” issue and a party may not forestall a summary final judgment by raising purely paper issues. Colon v. Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Soper v. Stine, 184 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Accordingly, summary final judgment was an appropriate disposition. There is another aspect of this case that is somewhat troubling and mention of it is included only because it…
-
Siegel v. Deerwood Place Corp., 701 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…g, the defendants argued that not only did they not have notice of the alleged dangerous condition, but also that the plaintiffs had failed to allege and demonstrate “fraud and concealment” on the part of the defendants as required by Colon v. Lara, 389 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The trial court granted summary judgment citing to Colon in its order. The plaintiffs’ appeal follows. The Siegels contend that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based on the authority of Colon. Although we agre…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)
- Kinkelaar v. Luella S. Kinkelaar, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)
- Reflex, N.V. v. The Umet Tr., 336 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Wingard v. McDONALD, 348 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Bailey v. State, 184 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Soper v. Stine, 184 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Ultra Marine Corp. v. Bryant, 375 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wentz v. The Indep. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)