ALVIN BROGDON AND GEORGIA BROGDON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
SOL BROWN AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Alvin Brogdon was injured falling into an unguarded stairwell at a construction site and sued Sol Brown for negligence. The trial court refused to give a negligence per se instruction based on building code violations, instructing the jury instead that the violations were merely evidence of negligence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because the building code was enacted for the protection of the general public rather than a particular class of persons, violation constitutes evidence of negligence but not negligence per se.
The trial court properly declined to give a negligence per se instruction because the building code violated was enacted for the protection of the general public, not for the protection of a particular class of persons. Therefore, violation of the code constitutes only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se.
[1] A violation of a building code enacted for the protection of the general public constitutes evidence of negligence, not negligence per se.
[2] A trial court properly declines to instruct a jury on negligence per se when the violated code provision was intended for the protection of the general public.
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“the trial court properly declined to give the negligence per se instruction because the code that was violated was enacted for the protection of the general public, not for the protection of a particular class of persons, therefore such violation was only evidence of negligence and not negligence per se”
Statement of the holding establishing the legal standard for when code violations constitute negligence per se versus mere evidence of negligence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvin Brogdon suffered injuries in a fall into an unguarded stairwell while working on Sol Brown's construction site. The trial resulted in a jury ver…
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 South Florida Building Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Alvin Brogdon was injured in a fall into an unguarded stairwell while working on appellee Brown’s construction site. The Brogdons’ negligence action resulted in the entry of final judgment for defendants/appellees pursuant to a jury verdict which found Brown not negligent in providing Brogdon a safe place to work.
Appellants contend that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of sections 3317 and 3312 of The South Florida Building Code1 was negligence per se.
We hold that the trial court properly declined to give the negligence per se instruction because the code that was violated was enacted for the protection of the general public, not for the protection of a particular class of persons, therefore such violation was only evidence of negligence and not negligence per se. See Cadillac Fairview of Florida, Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1985); Grand Union Co. v. Rocker, 454 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schulte v. Gold, 360 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1979). The jury was properly instructed to consider the code violations as evidence of negligence.
In view of our holding, we decline to address the point raised on cross-appeal, which has been rendered moot.
Affirmed.
. Section 3312 of The South Florida Building Code states in part:
All floor openings used as stairways, or for the accommodations of ladders or runways, shall be guarded by railings and toe boards.
Section 3317.1, entitled "Railings," provides in part:
Railings, when required during construction, shall comply with the Standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Part 1926, as set forth in Section 402 of Code, and as provided herein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morowitz v. Vistaview Apts., Ltd., 613 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…al to give the evidence of negligence instruction was error. A demonstrated violation of the South Florida Building Code constitutes evidence of negligence. Holland v. Baguette, Inc., [*496] 540 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Brogdon v. Brown, 505 So. 2d 19, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1987); Cadillac Fairview of Fla., Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1985). In light of the detailed testimony presented surrounding the Bui…
-
Louise v. Adamo and Francis P. Adamo, 548 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…OSHA regulations as the “community standard”, when the plaintiff is an injured worker who brings a negligence suit sounding in tort for recovery against a property owner, or third party not protected by worker’s tort immunity. See Brogdon v. Brown, 505 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (South Florida Building Code enacted to protect the general public, not a particular class of persons); Cadillac Fairview of Florida, Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (South Florida Building Code is for the…
Authorities Cited
- Cadillac Fairview OF Fla., Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- The Grand Union Co. v. Arline Rocker, 454 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Schulte v. Gold, 360 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)