WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KATHLEEN CARN AND PATRICIA CARN, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a judgment against a grocery store for injuries sustained when an automobile left a roadway and struck customers on the public sidewalk in front of the store. The court held that store owners have no legal duty to protect patrons from extraordinary and unforeseeable vehicle accidents occurring on public property adjacent to their premises.
A store owner does not owe a legal duty to protect patrons from injuries caused by vehicles leaving a roadway and striking people on an adjacent public sidewalk. Vehicle accidents, even on busy streets adjacent to stores, are extraordinary and unforeseeable occurrences that do not constitute incidents to the ordinary operation of establishments inviting the public to enter.
[1] A store owner is not liable for injuries sustained by a pedestrian on a public sidewalk when an automobile leaves the roadway and strikes the pedestrian, absent circumsta…
[2] Injuries resulting from a vehicle leaving a public roadway and striking a pedestrian on an adjacent public sidewalk are not considered foreseeable in contemplation of law…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When they happen, the consequences resulting therefrom are matters of chance and speculation. If as a matter of law such occurrences are held to be foreseeable and therefore to be guarded against, there would be no limitation on the duty owed by the owners of establishments into which people are invited to enter.”
Establishes that extraordinary vehicle accidents are not subject to foreseeability analysis and imposing such a duty would create unlimited liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees Kathleen Carn and Patricia Carn were injured when an automobile left the public roadway and struck them on the public sidewalk in front of W…
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 Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge.
We reverse the judgment and hold that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for appellant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., on a claim for injuries sustained by appellees, Kathleen Carn and Patricia Carn, when an automobile left the public roadway and struck appellees on the public sidewalk in front of appellant’s store.
In essence, appellees’ theory of liability was that appellant should be held liable because the store’s exit opened onto a public sidewalk which was adjacent to a busy street. In Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), Chief Judge Wigginton summed up our view of the instant situation in an opinion which approved the entry of summary judgment for a store owner under similar circumstances:
We are not unmindful of the obvious fact that at times operators lose control over the forward progress and direction of their vehicles either through negligence or as a result of defective mechanisms, which sometimes results in damage or injury to others. In a sense all such occurrences are foreseeable. They are not, however, incidents to ordinary operation of vehicles, and do not happen in the ordinary and normal course of events. When they happen, the consequences resulting therefrom are matters of chance and speculation. If as a matter of law such occurrences are held to be foreseeable and therefore to be guarded against, there would be no limitation on the duty owed by the owners of establishments into which people are invited to enter. Such occurrences fall within the category of the unusual or extraordinary, and are therefore unforeseeable in contemplation of the law.
There is nothing about the facts of this case that distinguish it from the situation and holding in Schatz.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment with directions that judgment be entered in favor of appellant.
HURLEY, J., and SALMON, MICHAEL H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1997)…strict court reversed a summary judgment where a vehicle struck and injured the plaintiff who was using a telephone located outside the store. The court in Cohen distinguished this decision from its prior decision in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Carn, 473 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986). Cohen, 533 So. 2d at 860-61. In Winn-Dixie, the court found that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant store owner where the plaintiff was injured by a car…
-
Cohen v. Inez Schrider, 533 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…ut by its Loss Prevention Manager are two factors which make this case different from Schatz. The foreseeability issue is more clear here; it is certainly a question for the jury in this case. We are also aware of our decision in Winn-Dixie v. Cam, 473 So. 2d 742 (Fla. [*861] 4th DCA 1985), but can easily distinguish it from this case. In Winn-Dixie the plaintiffs were injured by a car which left the public roadway in front of the grocery store and struck appellee on the public sidewalk. Here the car was in…
-
Molinares v. EL Centro Gallego, Inc., 545 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ed parking stalls directly in front of the building. Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961); see also Tieder v. Little, 502 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla.1987); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Carn, 473 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986); Food Fair, Inc. v. Gold, 464 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985); Cabals v. Elkins, 368 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Krispy Kreme Doughnut Co. v. Cornett, 312…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schatz v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 128 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)