WILLIE HUDGE, APPELLANT,
v.
XTRA SUPER FOOD CENTERS, INC., 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 premises owner owes a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and the unsecured stacking of heavy boards creates a foreseeable zone of risk.
Plaintiff, a delivery driver, was injured when unsecured plywood boards fell on him while he was working at defendant's store. The trial court granted…
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 Foreseeable Zone Of Risk cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Willie Hudge appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc. [“Xtra”]. We reverse.
Hudge was delivering merchandise to an Xtra store. He was directed to place his merchandise in an area where there were large, heavy, plywood boards leaning against the wall. The boards were not secured in any fashion. While carrying out his duties, Hudge was struck on the head by a board four feet by eight feet in size, and approximately one-half inch thick. Nothing in the record explains how or why the board fell. The trial court granted Xtra’s motion for summary judgment.
Xtra owed Hudge a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Gutierrez v. Dade County School Bd., 604 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1993). Xtra’s conduct in stacking the unsecured boards created a foreseeable zone of risk to persons working in the area. McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla.1992). The record demonstrates that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved regarding whether Xtra exercised reasonable care in storing the board that injured Hudge. Whether Xtra was negligent is a question for the jury. Valdes v. Faby Enter., Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1986); Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
We find that Xtra did not meet its “burden of conclusively showing the absence of genuine issues of material fact. If the existence of such issues or the possibility of their existence is reflected in the record, or the record even raises the slightest doubt in this respect, the summary judgment must be reversed.” Mejiah v. Rodriguez, 342 So. 2d 1066, 1067-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (emphasis added); Wills v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Accordingly, we reverse the order under review.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Darlynn P. Everett and Norman Everett v. Rest. & Catering Corp., 738 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…conditions created a dangerous condition, thus violating the restaurant’s duty of reasonable care, were questions for a jury to decide. The Everetts need not show precisely what caused the board to fall. See Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Centers, Inc., 677 So. 2d 405, 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Likewise, they are not required to produce direct evidence to negate the possibility that Mrs. Everett or one of her companions precipitated the falling of the board. See Harrell v. Beall’s Dept. Store, Inc., 614 So. 2d 1142…
-
Klaue v. Galencare, Inc., 696 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…a. 1st DCA 1995) (explaining the duties a landowner owes an invitee).1 In line with this duty, it had the responsibility of insuring that its [*935] employees use reasonable care in reshelving medical files. See Hudge v. Xtra Super Food Ctrs., Inc., 677 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (store owed deliveryman duty to use reasonable care in stacking boards in area where he was delivering merchandise). Under Florida law, the issue of whether the appellee breached this duty was improperly resolved by the trial cour…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- McCAIN v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Mejiah v. Olivio Rodriguez & Integon Indem. Corp., 342 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Valdes v. Faby Enters., Inc., 483 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gutierrez v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 604 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Luerain Frison v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Zuccaro v. Zuccaro, 407 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)