MARY AINSWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, A FOREIGN 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.
A guest injured by a defective threshold in a Tokyo hotel operated by Intercontinental Hotels sought damages for negligence. The trial court, relying on Schoen v. Gilbert, granted defendant's reserved motion for directed verdict after a jury verdict for plaintiff. The appellate court reversed, holding that the threshold's inherent dangerousness, not merely a change in elevation, constituted actionable negligence in this commercial setting.
The court reversed the directed verdict on the negligence claim, holding that Schoen v. Gilbert was inapplicable in this commercial setting because the claimed negligence was the installation and maintenance of an inherently dangerous threshold itself, not merely a change in elevation. The court affirmed the denial of the directed verdict on the franchisor liability issue.
[1] A hotel owner may be liable for injuries sustained by a guest due to an inherently dangerous condition created by the installation and maintenance of a threshold, regardl…
[2] The doctrine of inherent danger applies to a condition that is dangerous in and of itself, irrespective of its location.
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“The testimony of the experts offered by both sides was that, as constructed, this threshold constituted an inherently dangerous condition.”
Establishes that both parties' experts agreed the threshold was inherently dangerous, supporting the jury verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Ainsworth, a paying guest at the Keio Hotel in Tokyo, slipped and fell on a threshold between the bathroom and guestroom. The defendant installed…
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 Inherently Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for injury sustained when she was a paying guest in the Keio Hotel located in Tokyo, Japan, which was allegedly operated by the defendant.
The evidence indicated that the plaintiff slipped and fell on a threshold between the bathroom and guestroom. In construction of this hotel a prefabricated bathroom unit was utilized by the defendant. It was placed on the existing floor causing the floor of the bathroom to be elevated slightly above the remaining floor in the guestroom. This rise in elevation was covered by a threshold constructed of stainless steel. The threshold was elevated about one and one-half inches above the carpet in the guestroom. It had a smooth surface and sloped at a thirty degree angle for a distance of about three and one-third inches. The testimony of the experts offered by both sides was that, as constructed, this threshold constituted an inherently dangerous condition. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which, among other things, found her to be 20% negligent.
Following the entry of the jury verdict and final judgment thereon, the trial court granted the defendant’s reserved motion for directed verdict relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1983). The plaintiff appealed this ruling and the defendant filed a cross-appeal contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant it a directed verdict because the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant, as a franchisor, was responsible. We reverse, on the plaintiff’s appeal, the order on the reserved motion for directed verdict:
We do not find Schoen v. Gilbert, supra, applicable in this commercial setting. While there was change in elevation in the instant case, that was not the claimed negligence. The defendant’s negligence was the installation and maintenance of a threshold which was, in and of itself, inherently dangerous. This fact would be true no matter where this particular threshold was installed.
The order on the reserved ruling on the motion for directed verdict is reversed and the trial court is directed to reestablish the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The relief sought by the defendant on the cross-appeal as relates to the denial of the motion for directed verdict on the agency argument is rejected and the trial court in this regard is affirmed. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc., v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983).
Reversed in part with directions, affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joanette R. Lindsey and Robert L. Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc., 645 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…not evidence of a breach of any duty. Whether, as a general rule, handrail(s) are necessary to make steps or stairs reasonably safe, see generally Atlantic Terrace Co. v. Rosen, 56 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1952); Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 475 So. 2d 694 (1985), we need not decide here, because an ordinance addressed the subject at the time the building was constructed. The record contains the pertinent page from the City of Jacksonville’s building cod…
-
Welch v. State, 741 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A); Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Covington v. State, 728 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Patterson v. State, 569 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Newbold v. State, 521 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Banks v. State, 467 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). .§ 322.03(1), Fla. Stat. . Art. 1, § 12, Fla. Const. . Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); Wulff v. State, 533 S…
-
Krivanek v. Zennith Pasternack and Annette Pasternack, 490 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…on the part of appellant and thereby distinguish this case from Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1983). See Northwest Florida Crippled Children’s Assoc. v. Harigel, 479 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Ainsworth v. Intercontinental Hotels Corp., 467 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Kupperman v. Levine, 462 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Appellant also argues that she should be protected from liability based on the provisions of section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides that no officer,…
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
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1983)