STANLEY FROST, APPELLANT,
v.
NEWPORT MOTEL, INC., D/B/A NEWPORT RESORT MOTEL, 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 hotel guest was pulled from the bottom of the hotel's pool and sued for negligence, claiming the hotel failed to employ a professional lifeguard and breached its duty of reasonable care. The trial court granted summary judgment for the hotel, finding no genuine issue of material fact about negligence, and the appellate court affirmed, distinguishing the case from prior precedent involving condominiums by analyzing the duty owed in limited-access commercial establishments versus public facilities.
The court held that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the hotel's breach of a duty of reasonable care, affirming summary judgment for the hotel. The court distinguished hotels as limited-access commercial establishments from general-access public facilities, and found that the employment of pool attendants with divided responsibilities satisfied the applicable duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.
[1] A commercial enterprise's duty of reasonable care may be distinguished from that owed by a private entity, such as a condominium association, particularly concerning the…
[2] Regulations applicable to both hotels and condominiums regarding pool supervision do not necessarily create a distinction in the legal duty owed by each entity.
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 Law has always made a distinction between areas of limited access (stores, hotels, shops) and general access (public pools, race tracks, amusement centers).”
Establishes the legal framework for determining the duty of care owed by different types of establishments based on their access limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanley Frost was pulled from the bottom of Newport Motel's swimming pool and alleged injuries resulted from the hotel's failure to employ a professio…
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 Speculation And Conjecture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court entered summary final judgment for the defendant in an order which, quoted below in pertinent part, sets forth the basis for its decision.
“The within case involves a claim of negligence by the Defendant Hotel for failure to comply with H.R.S. regulations concerning the supervision of its pool as well as breach of a common law duty of reasonable care. The Plaintiff was pulled from the bottom of the Defendant’s pool and alleges damages resulted from the Defendant[’]s failure to have a professional lifeguard assigned to supervise the pool although there were pool attendants around who divided their time between supervision and other duties unrelated thereto such as chaise lounges, towels, etc.
“The Court is aware of Hemispheres Condominium Assoc. Inc., v. Corbin, 357 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1978) which if applicable, is dispositive of the within Motion. The negligence allegations in that case and this case are clones of each other. The dissimilarity between Hemispheres and the within case is that Hemispheres involved a Condominium Association, as opposed to a commercial enterprise such as a Hotel. The Court, in ordering a Judgment be entered for the Defendant in that case, spoke of a ‘private pool’ and carefully distinguished its holding from a ‘place providing public entertainment or amusement for profit.’ supra page 1076.
“The issue is whether that dissimilarity is a true basis for distinguishing the cases, or simply a distinction without a difference.
“The Court notes that the H.R.S. regulations in question are applicable to both Hotels and Condominiums (see Rule 10D-5.51 effective January 1, 1977 — pri-or to the Hemispheres decision). Thus, H.R.S. makes no distinction between the two. This is probably properly so, since both have limited access to tenants/owners and Hotel tenants/guests.
“The Law has always made a distinction between areas of limited access (stores, hotels, shops) and general access (public pools, race tracks, amusement centers). Thus, see the difference in the duty owed in Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1959) and Gwong v. Tampa Hotels, Inc., 132 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1961) versus Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 160 Fla. 502, 35 So. 2d 720 (1948) and Walt Disney World Co. v. Marietta Goode, So. 2d (Fla. 5th DCA, 1986).
“Based upon the above, the Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact on which a jury could base a decision of a lack of reasonable care on the Hotel’s part that was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries, other than pure speculation and conjecture; this is not permitted. See Ephrem v. Phillips, 99 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)....”
The summary final judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mordechai Adika v. Beekman Towers, Inc., 633 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…urt granted the motion; Adika appeals. An innkeeper in Florida has no duty to post a lifeguard on a public beach. In fact, this court has held that a hotel has no duty even to post a lifeguard at its own swimming pool. Frost v. Newport Motel, Inc., 516 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 878 (Fla.1988); see also Hemispheres Condominium Ass’n v. Corbin, 357 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA) (condominium association under no duty to its members to provide a professional lifeguard at the association’…
-
Libs v. Moonspinner Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 700 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Frost v. Newport Motel, Inc., 516 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 878 (Fla.1988). JOANOS, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Iman Kamal-Hashmat v. Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Co., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…rcuit court ruling “that a hotel has no duty even to post a lifeguard at its own swimming pool.” Adika v. Beekman Towers, Inc., 633 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 640 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1994), citing Frost v. Newport Motel, Inc., 516 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1988). In approving the trial court’s analysis in the Frost case, this court acknowledged the law’s “distinction between areas of limited access (stores, hotels, shops) and general access (publi…
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- Wells v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 160 Fla. 502 (Fla. 1948)
- Ephrem v. Phillips, 99 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Hemispheres Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Corbin, 357 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Jung Gwong v. Tampa Hotels, Inc., 132 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)