JUANITA RILES, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD ROBINSON, EDWARD ROBINSON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LTD. AND THE TWENTY ONE CLUB, 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.
The court reversed a negligence judgment and remanded for new trial because the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the property owner needed actual knowledge of a defective ceiling fan installation, when no such notice requirement applies to dangerous conditions created by the owner's own employees.
A property owner is liable for negligent installation of a ceiling fan by its employees without requiring proof of actual knowledge of the defect.
[1] A property owner is liable for negligent installation of fixtures by its employees without requiring proof of actual knowledge of the defect, as the dangerous condition i…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Inasmuch as the dangerous condition was created by the owner's employees in the installation of the fan, there is no requirement for notice.”
Court explaining why the actual knowledge instruction was improper when the owner's own employees created the defect
Riles, a tenant in appellees' apartment building, was injured when a defectively installed ceiling fan fell from her bedroom ceiling. The evidence sho…
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 Actual Knowledge Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge.
Juanita Riles appeals an adverse jury verdict in a negligence case.
The facts in this case indicate that while Riles was a tenant in the appellees’ apartment building, a ceiling fan was defectively installed in her bedroom, which ultimately fell and injured her. The evidence at trial indicates the fan fell because of this defective installation.
The trial court instructed the jury that the owner of the premises was not liable unless he had actual knowledge of the condition which caused the injury. This notice instruction was improper as the sole issue presented to the jury was the question of negligent installation, not the negligent maintenance of the installed fan. Inasmuch as the dangerous condition was created by the owner’s employees in the installation of the fan, there is no requirement for notice. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1961). The instruction to the jury was in error and confusing and obviously misled the jury causing them to reach a conclusion contrary to the facts and law. See Schlein v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 339 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1977); Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1974).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolford v. Van Ostenbridge, 861 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…rty in a reasonably safe condition regardless of the owner’s knowledge of the dangerousness of the condition. Thus, once it is determined that the owner created the danger, knowledge of that dangerousness [*457] is irrelevant. See Riles v. Robinson, 548 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that the owner’s knowledge of the dangerousness of the condition is not an issue if the condition was created by the owner); cf. Knight, 774 So. 2d 731 (holding that even if the invitee has knowledge of the condition tha…
-
Rolf Grayson and Myra Grayson v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 576 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 284 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), (evidence of store employees’ creation of dangerous condition or of store’s knowledge of such condition was for jury), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 205 (Fla.1974); see also Riles v. Robinson, 548 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Devoe v. Western Auto Supply Co., 537 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Further, we conclude the evidence presented, including the size of the puddle, was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the puddle existed for a…
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Phoebe C. Trusell et vir, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vanater, 297 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1974)
- Schlein v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 339 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)