ELIZABETH DE GUZMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
KENDALL SKATING CENTER, LTD. AND ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Mrs. Guzman was injured at a skating rink when knocked down by another skater. The skating center was granted summary judgment on her negligent supervision claim, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff's affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's knowledge of dangerous conduct.
Summary judgment was improper because the plaintiff's affidavits created a reasonable inference that the rink personnel knew or should have known of the disruptive skaters in sufficient time to prevent harm, presenting a material issue of fact that precluded summary judgment.
[1] A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
[2] A plaintiff's affidavit stating that unruly individuals were observed skating without supervision, including the person who caused the injury, raises a material issue of…
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“Whether the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any danger created by the disorderly skaters was a material issue in this case.”
Establishes that knowledge of dangerous conditions is a material fact that cannot be resolved by 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 intelligenceMrs. Guzman was injured when knocked down by another skater at Kendall Skating Center. Affidavits submitted by the plaintiff stated that several unrul…
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 Actual Or Constructive Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Mrs. Guzman was injured when knocked down by another skater at Kendall Skating Center. She sued the skating center alleging that its failure to adequately supervise the skating area proximately caused her injuries. After answer and very limited discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted. We reverse.
In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant claimed there was no evidence tending to show that it knew or should have known of the presence of the offending skater or of the danger created by that skater. The response to the motion was accompanied by identical affidavits which stated, inter alia:
That Affiant observed several unruly and wild persons, including the individual who ultimately pushed the Plaintiff down, who were allowed to skate without any supervision. Said individuals were observed twenty to thirty minutes before the incident occurred shouting and yelling.
Whether the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any danger created by the disorderly skaters was a material issue in this case. See Hilgenhurst v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper, Inc., 400 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981); Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Nance v. Ball, 134 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). A reasonable inference from the affiants’ testimony is that the rink personnel, called “skate guards,” also knew or should have known of the disruptive skaters and in sufficient time to have prevented them from causing any harm. The defendant presented no proof to overcome this inference and thus was not entitled to a summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Nance v. Linzy Ball and June Ball, 134 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 221 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Hilgenhurst v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper, Inc., 400 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)