SCHOTT
v.
PANCOAST PROPERTIES
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 Florida Supreme Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply when a window screen fell from a hotel, injuring a pedestrian. The court found that the hotel owner was not liable because the window cleaning was performed by an independent contractor, and the injured party had already accepted payment from the contractor.
No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable. The court held that the hotel owner was not liable because the exclusive control element required for res ipsa loquitur was not met, as an independent contractor was performing the window cleaning.
“This rule of evidence giving rise to inference in aid of proof was not available in this controversy because it was not only not established that the instrument causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant, but there was abundant proof to the contrary.”
Explains why res ipsa loquitur was not applicable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA pedestrian was struck and injured by a window screen that fell from a hotel. The hotel owner argued that an independent window cleaning company, whi…
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 Exclusive Control cases and more on FLexlaw
Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellee. THOMAS, Justice.
The appellant, while standing on a street of the city of Miami Beach, was struck by a window screen that fell from the hotel of the appellee. She brought this action claiming that the injuries she suffered resulted from the negligence of the appellee's agents, servants, and employees. The appellee defended, affirmatively, on the ground that the object was "caused to fall by reason of the acts" of a window cleaning company, an independent contractor engaged at the time in washing the windows of the hotel.
The appellant thinks this was a classic case for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but we cannot agree. This rule of evidence giving rise to inference in aid of proof was not available in this controversy because it was not only not established that the instrument causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant, but there was abundant proof to the contrary. The doctrine may not be invoked unless it appear that the thing causing the injury was so completely in the control of the defendant that, in the ordinary course of events, the mishap could not have occurred had there been proper care on the defendant's part.
This exclusive control, with certain variations, Yarbrough v. Ball U Drive System, Fla., 48 So. 2d 82, none of which is present here, is an indispensable element and, as a corollary, the doctrine cannot avail if, from the factual situation developed it could be reasonably inferred that the injury was attributable to another. Alabama Power Co. v. Bryant, 226 Ala. 251, 146 So. 602; Smith v. McClung, 201 N.C. 648, 161 S.E. 91; 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 220, page 1012.
At the time of the mishap, the cleaning service was engaged in washing the windows, and to accomplish the task, it was necessary to remove the screens. This work was unquestionably that of an independent contractor.
The appellant, herself, accepted payment for her injuries from the window cleaning company. All this leads to the conclusion that the doctrine was inappropriate for this controversy, that company having been recognized as responsible, and, by the same token, to the conclusion that the cleaning company being responsible as an independent contractor, the appellee was not. Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 1978)…by the defendants, but the inference was inappropriate because the plaintiffs in these cases failed to allege and prove the essential element of defendant’s exclusive control over the injury-causing instrumentality. In Schott v. Pancoast Properties, 57 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla.1952), we held: “The doctrine may not be invoked unless it appear [sic] that the thing causing the injury was so completely in the control of the defendant that, in the ordinary course of events, the mishap could not have occurred had the…
-
Schott v. Pancoast Props., 57 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1952)…57 So. 2d 431 (1952) SCHOTT v. PANCOAST PROPERTIES. Supreme Court of Florida, Division A. February 26, 1952. Rehearing Denied March 27, 1952. *432 Nathanson, Oka & Spaet, Miami Beach, for appellant. Dixon, DeJarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellee. THOMAS, Ju…
-
Frash v. Sarres, 60 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 1952)…the party in control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation, that the injury arose from defendant's want of care; * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) In a more recent case of Schott v. Pancoast Properties, Fla., 57 So. 2d 431, 432, the Court said: "The doctrine may not be invoked unless it appear that the thing causing the injury was so completely in the control of the defendant that, in the ordinary course of events, the mishap could not have occurred had there been pr…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yarbrough v. Ball U-Drive Sys., 48 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1950)
- Schott v. Pancoast Props., 57 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1952)