COLD STORAGE CAFÉ, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER BARONE, RICHARD H. SOLLNER, AS TRUSTEE OF LAND TRUST NUMBER 1, AND ROBERT HINE, APPELLEES
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.
Cold Storage Café appeals a summary judgment in favor of landlord Sollner in a premises liability case where a customer was injured by shattered glass. The court reversed, finding ambiguities in the lease regarding responsibility for window maintenance created disputed material facts precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because ambiguities in the lease regarding whether a window in an exterior wall constituted an 'exterior' or 'interior' maintenance responsibility created disputed material facts. Additionally, even if the landlord was not contractually responsible, unresolved factual issues remain regarding whether the window presented a dangerous condition (e.g., whether it should have contained safety glass instead of plate glass), which also preclude summary judgment on the landlord's duty to maintain safe premises.
[1] Ambiguities in a lease agreement and disputed interpretations of its provisions by the parties create issues of fact that preclude summary judgment.
[2] A landlord's contractual responsibility for maintaining leased premises does not necessarily relieve them of the duty to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“At the very least there are ambiguities in the lease and the parties' disputed interpretations of the lease provisions created issues of fact that precluded summary judgment”
Establishes that ambiguous contract language creates factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Barone was injured by flying shattered glass when Robert Hine struck a large window at Cold Storage Café, a bar and restaurant in Tampa. Cold…
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 Lease Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Jennifer Barone was injured by flying shattered glass when appellee Robert Hine struck a large window on the premises of the Cold Storage Café, a bar and restaurant on Florida Avenue in downtown Tampa. The café was owned and operated by appellant Cold Storage Café, Inc. (Cold Storage), who leased the premises from appellee Richard H. Sollner as Trustee of Land Trust Number 1. Ms. Barone filed a personal injury and premises liability lawsuit naming as defendants Mr. Hine, Cold Storage, and Mr. Sollner in his trustee capacity. Mr. Sollner moved for summary judgment on liability claiming he had no responsibility for Ms. Bar-one’s injuries because he had leased the premises and retained no possessory interest or control of them.
The trial court entered summary judgment in Mr. Soll-ner’s favor. In order to preserve its rights, see Holton v. H.J. Wilson, Co., 482 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1986), Cold Storage stepped into Ms. Barone’s shoes and brings this appeal from the summary judgment in favor of its codefendant, Mr. Sollner. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(k).
We reverse.
Cold Storage claims that there remain disputed issues of material fact concerning whether it or Mr. Sollner, under the provisions of the lease, was responsible for maintaining the window. Generally the lease gives to Mr. Sollner the responsibility for the “exterior of the leased property” and to Cold Storage the responsibility to maintain the “interior of the leased property.” The terms “exterior” and “interior” are not defined in the lease. Cold Storage argued that because the window was part of an exterior wall, it was Mr. Sollner’s responsibility to maintain, even though in the past Cold Storage had always cleaned all windows and, when the need arose, replaced broken ones.
At the very least there are ambiguities in the lease and the parties’ disputed interpretations of the lease provisions created issues of fact that precluded summary judgment, despite evidence that in the past Cold Storage had cleaned and replaced windows. See Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Cold Storage’s actions may not necessarily mean that it thereby relieved the landlord of duties that he had under the lease. See Craig v. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., 631 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Moreover, even if the landlord was not contractually responsible for maintaining the windows, this fact is not dispositive of the landlord’s duty to have his premises in a reasonably safe condition. Whether the condition of the window on the date of the accident was dangerous, e.g., because the window should have contained safety glass instead of plate glass, is an unresolved issue of fact. The issue of whether a negligent condition exists on premises generally involves, as here, a disputed material fact which precludes summary judgment. See Wimbush v. Gaddis, 713 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 577 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of appellee Mr. Sollner and remand for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Zaira Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ts, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315, 330 (Fla.2001) ("It is undisputed that under Florida law, all premises owners owe a duty to their invitees to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition.”). . Cold Storage Cafe, Inc. v. Barone, 779 So. 2d 371, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("The issue of whether a negligent condition exists on premises generally involves, as here, a disputed material fact which precludes summaty judgment.”); Emerine; Everett v. Restaurant & Catering Corp., 738 So. 2d 1015, 1016…
-
Scotty Lamar POE v. IMC Phosphates MP, Inc., 885 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ment entered in this premises liability case, we are mindful that the issue of whether a negligent condition exists on premises generally involves a disputed issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment. Cold Storage Café, Inc. v. Barone, 779 So. 2d 371, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). ANALYSIS Genuine issues of fact in the record give rise to two distinct legal theories of IMC’s liability, thus precluding summary judgment in its favor. A. Misleading Private Way Courts from numerous jurisdictions have…
-
George Crowell, M.D. v. Barry Kaufmann, M.D., 845 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…dgment hearing. Dr. Crowell, as codefendant in the trial court, has standing to appeal a summary judgment which exonerates his codefend-ant from liability. See Holton v. H.J. Wilson Co., 482 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1986); Cold Storage Cafe, Inc. v. Barone, 779 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Dr. Kaufmann argues that this principle applies only when a codefendant is seeking to protect his statutory right to contribution under section 768.31, Florida Statutes (2000), and not when a defendant merely seeks to preserve hi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hervey v. Alfonso, 650 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Rivers v. Ross, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 577 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Holton v. H.J. Wilson Co., Inc., 482 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1986)
- Craig v. Gate Mar. Props., Inc., 631 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Wimbush v. Gaddis, 713 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)