RELIANCE ELECTRIC COMPANY, HAUGHTON ELEVATOR DIVISION, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALDINE HUMPHREY, 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.
A Florida appellate court held that violation of a statute requiring proper maintenance of elevators constitutes negligence per se. The court determined that the maintenance statute falls within the category of laws establishing duties to protect a particular class of persons from specific injuries.
A violation of Section 399.02(6)(b) constitutes negligence per se. The statute falls within the category of laws establishing a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury, making a jury instruction on negligence per se appropriate.
[1] A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se when the statute is designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves.
[2] A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se when the statute establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular…
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“An instruction that a violation of a given statute is negligence per se is appropriate in two circumstances: (1) when the statute is of the "strict liability" type, i.e., "designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves, such as one prohibiting the sale of firearms to minors." de Jesus v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 281 So.2d 198, 201 (Fla.1973); and (2) when the statute "establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury."”
Establishes the legal test for when statutory violation constitutes negligence per se
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeraldine Humphrey was injured in connection with an elevator operated by Reliance Electric Company's Haughton Elevator Division. The case involves a …
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 Strict Liability Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
The issue is whether a violation of Section 399.02(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1981) (which requires proper maintenance of elevators), constitutes negligence per se. We hold that it does and, therefore, we approve the trial court’s instruction to this effect and we affirm.
An instruction that a violation of a given statute is negligence per se is appropriate in two circumstances: (1) when the statute is of the “strict liability” type, i.e., “designed to protect a particular class of persons from their inability to protect themselves, such as one prohibiting the sale of firearms to minors.” de Jesus v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, 281 So. 2d 198, 201 (Fla.1973); and (2) when the statute “establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injury.” Ibid. See also, Florida Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hines v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 383 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
Section 399.02(6)(b) falls squarely within the second category. It provides in pertinent part that:
The owner or his duly appointed agent shall be responsible for the safe operation and proper maintenance of the elevator, dumbwaiter, escalator, moving walk, endless belt man lift, or powered lift for sewage pump station after it has been approved by the division and placed in service. The owner or his agent shall make periodic inspections, maintain in proper working order all parts of the elevator installation, and make and be responsible for all tests and inspections which the division may require.
Elevators are commonplace. Indeed, in many buildings they provide the only reasonable mode of conveyance. Yet the passengers — the class of individuals for whom the statute was enacted — have no say in questions of maintenance, repair and other safety precautions. Thus, the task of mak ing elevators safe necessarily falls upon the owner or agent who is in a position to undertake proper maintenance. The proper execution of this duty is of paramount importance. Consequently, it is consistent with the body of law cited above to hold that a violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, J., and SHAHOOD, GEORGE A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ar injury or type of injury constitutes negligence per se. The statute in question here falls squarely within this category, its violation is negligence per se, and an instruction to that effect is appropriate. Reliance Electric Company v. Humphrey, 427 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The question remains whether the trial court's refusal to give this instruction constitutes reversible error. Appellee suggests that even if error, it is harmless since the trial court thoroughly instructed the jury on the elem…
-
Nicosia v. Otis Elevator Co., 548 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…the elevator. Failure to comply with section 399.02 constitutes negligence per se. See Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988); Reliance Elec. Co., Haughton Elevator Div. v. Humphrey, 427 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also de Jesus v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973) (violation of a statute which establishes a duty to take precautions to protect a particular class of persons from a particular injury or type of injur…
-
Black v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 581 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…); Lombard v. Executive Elevator Service, Inc., 545 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988); Reliance Electric Co., Haughton Elevator Division v. Humphrey, 427 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, 242 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Gel-man seems to be the genesis of this practice in Florida and it relies on a non-elevator case (Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., 227 So. 2d 519 (F…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Transition Rule 15, 281 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
- Fla. Freight Terminals, Inc. v. Cabanas, 354 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Tolley v. State, 383 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)