JOEL SUSSMAN, D/B/A SURREY MANAGEMENT COMPANY; BUSINESS PROPERTY PROGRESS, INC., D/B/A SURREY HOTEL; AND KENT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY TUTELMAN, 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.
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish a legal duty, breach, or causation linking the defendants to the plaintiff's injuries.
Plaintiff tripped over a cane in a hotel lobby while walking past occupied seating and sustained injuries. She sued the hotel owner, lessor, and insur…
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 Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, the defendants below in a personal injury lawsuit, seek reversal of an adverse final judgment. For the reasons which follow, we reverse and remand for the entry of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
Mary Tutelman had lived at the Surrey Hotel and walked in and out of the lobby three times daily for about one and one-half years. Upon entering the lobby one day she walked down a three to six foot wide “aisle” formed by a row of chairs facing a ten to twelve foot long yellow sofa. Both the sofa and the chairs were occupied. As Tutelman walked down the “aisle” she, by her own testimony, saw and then tripped over a cane held by a person sitting either upon the sofa or in one of the chairs and sustained injuries. She brought suit against the owner, lessor and insurer of the hotel property. The defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The jury found the defendants forty per cent negligent.
The evidence offered fails to demonstrate the presence of any legal duty, breach or causation linking the defendants to Tutelman’s injuries. See Heps v. Bur- dines, Inc., 69 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1954); Kraver v. Edelson, 55 So. 2d 179 (Fla.1951); Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied mem., 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Croon v. Quayside Assocs., Ltd., 464 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…uld have been granted in favor of Quayside Development because it was clear from the evidence that the accident in question happened on a site with which they were not involved. Heps v. Burdine’s, Inc., 69 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1954); Sussman v. Tutelman, 445 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). As to Quayside Associates we hold that a directed verdict should have been granted to them as a successor in interest to Apgar & Markham, the general contractor. By assignment they were responsible for the obligations of the gen…
-
Sell v. Torres, 462 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Licenberg v. Issem, 318 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1975); International Sales-Rental Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof, 263 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1972); Heps v. Burdine’s, Inc., 69 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1954); Sussman v. Tutelman, 445 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Fenner v. McLowhorn, 424 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Schreier v. Parker, 415 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Gordon, 328 So. 2d 206 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Cooper v. State, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Heps v. Burdine's, Inc., 69 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1954)
- Kraver v. Edelson, 55 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1951)