ROSE LUCKS, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Summary judgment for supermarket in assault and purse-snatching case was reversed because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the store had prior knowledge of similar incidents that would impose a duty to warn.
Summary judgment is inappropriate when a genuine factual dispute exists regarding whether a store had knowledge of prior similar criminal incidents in its parking lot that would create a duty to warn invitees.
[1] A store's liability to invitees for criminal acts of third persons depends on whether the store had or should have known of prior similar incidents that would impose a du…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA customer was assaulted and had her purse snatched in the parking lot of a supermarket. The defendant filed affidavits stating its manager and employ…
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 Foreseeability Of Criminal Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals a final summary judgment in favor of a defendant/supermarket in a suit for damages growing out of an assault and purse snatching in the parking lot of the defendant’s store. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant filed affidavits that its manager and employees were unaware of any similar event occurring in its parking lot. The plaintiff filed an affidavit to the effect that several similar incidents had occurred in the same parking lot prior to the event in question.
This Court has recently discussed the issues of liability to invitees for the criminal acts of third persons. . See Highlands Insurance Company v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We conclude that in the instant case an unresolved issue of fact remained as to whether the defendant store should have known of the prior similar events in its parking lot and whether this prior knowledge gave rise to a duty to warn the plaintiff. In reaching this conclusion we caution that we are not called upon to rule on the validity or extent of the basic cause of action stated in the complaint.
We hold only that a fact issue existed under the pleadings as they appeared at the time of the motion for summary judgment. It may be that plaintiff will be unable to prove the case at trial and that a directed verdict will be entered. Summary judgment was, however, not appropriate and the judgment for defendant below is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carr Smith & Assocs., Inc. v. Fence Masters, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…reach of trust by the corporate officer is a question of fact to be resolved by a fact finder and not by summary judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510.”), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1986); Lucks v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 399 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (trial court erred in entering summary judgment for supermarket since there remained disputed issue of fact concerning whether supermarket should have known of prior similar events in its parking lot in order to determine whether…
Authorities Cited
- Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)