LUCILLE ROSENFELD, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Disney, holding that ordinary curbs and streets, even with optical illusions created by coloring, are open and obvious hazards that do not subject a property owner to premises liability.
Ordinary curbs and streets, including those recreated in an amusement park with colors creating optical illusions of flatness, are open and obvious hazards that do not impose premises liability on the property owner.
[1] Ordinary curbs and streets, even when artificially colored to create optical illusions of flatness, constitute open and obvious hazards that do not subject a property own…
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 intelligenceLucille Rosenfeld fell over a street curb on Main Street USA at Disney's Magic Kingdom in Florida. The Rosenfelds alleged the curb, street, and sidewa…
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 Duty Of Care To Invitees cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
The Rosenfelds appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Walt Disney World Company. The trial court held Lucille Rosenfeld could not recover damages caused by her fall over a street curb on “Main Street USA,” at the Magic Kingdom in Orange County, Florida, from Walt Disney World, the owner and operator of the theme park. The major thrust of the Rosenfelds’ complaint was that the Disney property where Lucille fell is a public amusement park, not a public street, and that the curb, street and sidewalk were colored artificially in such a way as to create an optical illusion of flatness, which obscured the change of levels from Lucille’s view, and created a hazard for guests and patrons visiting Main Street.
This court has held en banc that changes in levels from ordinary curbs to streets do not subject a landowner to premises liability for injuries suffered by persons falling over the curbs and that an optical illusion of flatness created by the colors of the curb and street does not make them inherently or unreasonably dangerous, as a matter of law. Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. denied, 604 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1992). Disney’s Main Street curbs and streets are recreations of ordinary village and town streets and curbs, although located in its amusement park. That fact alone is not sufficient to remove Disney’s ordinary streets and curbs from the category of open and obvious hazards. Thus, this case is controlled by Gorin. See also Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1990).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krol v. City OF Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…lanning level function for which absolute immunity attaches.” The trial court also held that the storm drain was open and obvious and summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law pursuant to the decision in Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) and its ancestry. We reverse. There are two distinct issues that we must resolve in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate: 1) whether the sovereign, the City, is immune from liability and 2) whether judgment in fav…1 / 2
-
Dandal Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…mply so open and obvious that they can be held as a matter of law not to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Important to the appellee’s motion for summary judgment was the attachment of photographs depicting these planters. Taylor testified in her deposition that the…
-
Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Zaira Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Taylor v. Universal City [*631] Property Management, 779 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 799 So. 2d 219 (Fla.2001); Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Rosenfeld v. Walt Disney World Co., 651 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 604 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1992); and Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Marriott also cites several cases…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Gorin v. City OF ST. Augustine, 595 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)