CECIL STORR, APPELLANT,
v.
NADINE PROCTOR, 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 construction worker hired to build a patio was injured when a rusty wire mesh provided by the homeowner broke and struck his leg. The court affirmed summary judgment for the homeowner, holding that she had no duty to warn of obvious dangers that the experienced worker should have discovered through ordinary inspection.
The court held that the property owner owed no duty to warn of the danger because: (1) an owner may assume that an invitee will perceive obvious dangers through ordinary use of his own senses; (2) the owner's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of the invitee to create a duty to warn; and (3) here, if the wire appeared sound to the experienced worker upon inspection, the owner could not be liable for failing to discover a defect she had no knowledge of.
[1] A landowner owes a business invitee the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent perils known or discoverable by the owner but n…
[2] A landowner is not required to warn an invitee of dangers that are obvious and would be perceived by the invitee using ordinary senses.
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“The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him.”
Establishes the standard duty owed by property owners to business invitees regarding latent dangers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNadine Proctor hired her ex-husband Cecil Storr, an experienced construction worker with 25 years in the field, to build a patio. Proctor furnished th…
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 Duty To Warn Of Latent Dangers cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Nadine Proctor employed her ex-husband, Cecil Storr to build her a patio. Storr worked in construction and had 25 years experience in the field. Pursuant to their agreement, Proctor was to furnish all the materials to be used in constructing the patio. To this end she furnished Storr with a roll of wire mesh which she had stored in the open for about 1½ years. The roll of wire was rusty, but Storr seeing nothing wrong with it, other than some rust, proceeded to unroll the wire. While he was doing so one of the wire mesh strands broke loose and recoiled striking Storr in his leg, causing a puncture wound which ultimately became infected. Thereafter, Storr brought the instant action seeking damages. Issue was joined and after the depositions of the parties were taken Proctor moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered a final summary judgment for Proctor and the instant appeal ensued. We affirm.
The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him. Hickory House v. Brown, 77 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1955); Messner v. Webb’s City, 62 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1952).
An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger. Melton v. Estes, 379 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
It is well settled that the property owners knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of the invitee in order to create a duty to warn of dangers unknown to the invitee. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Somers v. Meyers, 171 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Quinnelly v. Southern Maid Syrup Co., 164 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
We find nothing in the instant case to establish any legal liability on the part of Proctor for the very obvious reason that Storr, a man experienced in this type of construction, admitted that he made a visual inspection of the, wire which appeared sound to him. If it appeared sound to Storr, how can it be successfully contended that Proctor, who had no knowledge thereof, could have discovered the defect.
Therefore, we find that the trial court correctly entered the final judgment appealed.
Affirmed.
JORGENSON, J., concurs.
BASKIN, Judge,
dissenting.
In my opinion, an issue of material fact exists regarding whether Proctor’s knowledge of the dangerous condition of the wire mesh was superior to Storr’s knowledge. I would, therefore, reverse the summary final judgment entered in favor of Proctor, see Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1965); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and remand for trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care, could not be known to him.” Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), quoting Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1986); Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of…
-
Harriette Wilson-Greene v. The City OF Miami, 208 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…emises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him. Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Where a contract exists, “a defendant’s liability extends to persons foreseeably injured by his failure to use reasonable care in performance of a contractual promise.” Maryland Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74,…
-
Gloris Crawford and Edward Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ver it. Appellant contended that an overgrowth of shrubbery just above the light obscured the light’s location and created an unreasonably dangerous condition. The trial judge entered summary judgment for appellees. As was held in Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla.1986): The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Arleen S. Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hickory House, Inc. v. Brown, 77 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1955)
- Messner v. Webb's City, Inc., 62 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1952)
- Quinnelly v. S. Maid Syrup Co., Inc., 164 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Plyser v. Demitri Hados, 388 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Somers v. Meyers, 171 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)