RICHARD BECKER AND CAROLE BECKER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINN-DIXIE STORE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SNOWHITE DUST CONTROL SERVICES, INC., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1990-07-25
No. 89-1887
GUNTHER, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur., ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
564 So. 2d 132 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Unreasonably Dangerous Defective Product Failure To State A Cause Of Action

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unreasonably Dangerous cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Concurrence
ANSTEAD, Judge,

ANSTEAD, Judge,

specially concurring.

I concur with the majority in affirming the dismissal of the third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The appellant husband apparently tripped and fell at the entrance to a supermarket. The fall took place near a sliding entry door. There was a mat placed nearby. The appellee, Snowhite Dust Control Services, Inc., was the supplier of the mat to the supermarket. The complaint claims that the appellee, as the supplier of the mat, should have known that an accident would occur if a mat was placed close to a sliding door.

The trial court did not believe these allegations sufficient to state a cause of action, and, after giving appellant several opportunities to allege a defect or unreasonably dangerous condition, dismissed the claim with prejudice. There are no allegations in the several complaints filed against the appellee that the mat was defective or unreasonably dangerous in any way. Absent such allegations the trial court appears to be eminently correct in concluding that no cause of action is stated. See Royal v. Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 205 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The pleadings really state no more than that an accident happened involving a mat and a sliding door. I agree that this is not enough to State a claim for legal liability against the supplier of the mat.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Commercial Laundries, Inc. v. Golf Course Towers Assocs., 568 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …final judgment thirty days after its rendition, Conner v. Northeastern Int’l Airways, Inc., 543 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), unless the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the judgment. See Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); A-One Coin Laundry [*503] Equip. Co. v. Waterside Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 561 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soll v. Soll, 560 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In an action relating to the foreclosure of property, the trial court’…
  • Pius Affolter v. Va. Key Marina, 601 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a); see BCH Mechanical, Inc. v. McCoy, 584 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Nolan’s Towing & Recovery v. Marino Trucking, Inc., 581 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 564 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from the order granting the motion for a directed verdict, although our disposition on the appeal from the order granting a new trial will require the trial court to vacate its directed verdict…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw