PAULA FONTANA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILSON WORLD MAINGATE CONDOMINIUM, ETC., 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 hotel guest was injured when a defective chair collapsed. The trial court directed a verdict for the hotel based on lack of notice of the defect, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the hotel owed a duty of reasonable care to inspect its furnishings and that the absence of any inspection procedure created a jury question.
The court reversed the directed verdict and remanded for a new trial, holding that even without evidence of how long the chair had been defective, the hotel's complete absence of any inspection or maintenance procedure for its furnishings, combined with evidence that the defect would have been discovered upon reasonable inspection, created a jury question on negligence.
[1] A business owes a duty of ordinary and reasonable care to its invitees regarding their safety.
[2] A hotel owes its guests a duty of ordinary and reasonable care to ensure their safety.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Even though a hotel is not an insurer, it nevertheless owes its guests the duty of ordinary and reasonable care.”
Establishes the foundational duty owed by hotels to guests, rejecting strict liability but imposing negligence standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFontana, a guest at Wilson World Maingate Condominium hotel, sat in a chair that was defective and collapsed, causing injury. The chair was broken at …
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 Hidden Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Fontana, while a guest of appellee’s hotel, sat in a chair which was defective causing it to collapse and injure her. At the conclusion of her case, the court directed a verdict in favor of appellee because there was no evidence of actual or constructive notice as to the condition of the chair. We reverse.
Appellee does not deny that the chair was defective.1 It contends only that there was no showing that it knew or reasonably should have known of the defective condition. Admittedly, there was no evidence offered as to how long the chair had been defective. The injury occurred shortly after Fontana checked into the hotel. But the defect described by the plaintiff should have been apparent had appellee checked the chair. Even though a hotel is not an insurer, it nevertheless owes its guests the duty of ordinary and reasonable care. One who conducts a business in which the public is invited to enter owes a duty to such invitees with respect to their safety. This duty may vary with the circumstances of the case. See Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Gitlin, 1 So. 2d 191, (Fla.1941).
The situation involved in this case is not like a normal slip and fall case in which the danger is a pool of liquid or a banana peel on the floor which would be readily apparent from a visual inspection at reasonable intervals; here, the defect was hidden. Houseeleaning personnel merely looking at the chair would not have observed danger.
The record indicates that the chair was heavy. The fact that rusty scissors were found under the chair indicates that the chair may not have been moved (or touched) during room cleaning for some period of time. Even though the defendant might have put on contrary evidence had the directed verdict not been entered, the fact is that the only record evidence is that appellee had no procedure in place for the inspection or maintenance of its furnishings.
Thus, at the time the directed verdict was entered, there was evidence that appellee did not cheek the condition of its furniture to see that it was in a safe condition. Even ordinary wear and tear over a period of time can become a hazard.
The jury could have found that the owner’s ostrich-like approach to the safety of its premises did not meet its obligations to its invitees. In a situation such as this where there is evidence that the hotel has no inspection procedure and where an overnight guest is injured because of a defective condition that existed prior to. such guest checking into the hotel, a condition that would have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection, the issue of negligence should have gone to the jury.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
PETERSON, J., concurs in result only.
. For the purpose of this appeal, it can hardly do otherwise. Since this is a directed verdict case, only the plaintiffs witnesses testified. Her evidence shows that the chair was broken at the swivel and, even though the defendant’s opening statement contests this fact, no evidence challenging her testimony is in the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., 137 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)…, there is no conflict with these cases because they are factually distinguishable. Specifically, none of the alleged conflict cases involve similar testimony from the plaintiffs expert. Additionally, in Fontana v. Wilson World Maingate Condominium, 717 So. 2d 199, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the defect in the chair “would have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection,” and there was some evidence which indicated that the chair had not been used for some time prior to the accident. Similarly, in Schneider v.…1 / 2
-
Ronna Martino and Raymond Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…substance, supermarket slip and fall cases, Florida’s courts have applied a “mode of operation” theory of liability to premises liability cases. See, e.g., Brisson v. W.T. Grant Co., 79 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1955); Fontana v. Wilson World Maingate Condo., 717 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Since, contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the law did permit the Martinos to pursue their “mode of operation” theory of negligence, we reverse the directed verdict in favor of Wal-Mart on this issue and remand for further pro…
-
Fetterman & Assocs., P.A. v. Friedrich, 69 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…riate for the premises involved.” Id. The court concluded that summary judgment was “inappropriate because whether the motel’s inspection of the chair was reasonable was for a jury to determine.” Id. In Fontana v. Wilson World Maingate Condominium, 717 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), a guest in a hotel was injured while sitting in a chair that collapsed. The trial court directed a verdict for the hotel, finding that there was no evidence that the hotel had notice as to the condition of the chair that collaps…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence