PATRICIA DURDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN I. DRANETZ, D/B/A VILLAGE BARN, 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.
Patricia Durden appealed the dismissal of her negligence complaint arising from a slip-and-fall on defendant's dance floor allegedly caused by a dangerous accumulation of wax. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a breach of duty owed to a business invitee and stated a viable cause of action.
The complaint states a viable cause of action. Although dance floors are intentionally slippery and patrons assume some risk of slipping, a dangerous accumulation of wax in a particular spot can violate the standard of care owed to business invitees, and Durden's allegations, viewed favorably, adequately plead such a condition.
“Since we are dealing with a business invitee, there is no difficulty regarding the existence of a duty upon which negligence may be based.”
Establishes that Durden, as a business invitee, was owed a clear duty of care by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDurden alleged she slipped and fell on defendant Dranetz's dance floor at the Village Barn, suffering a fractured leg, cuts, bruises, lacerations, and…
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
PEARSON, Judge.
The plaintiff in her complaint alleged that she was caused to slip and fall upon defendant’s dance floor by a dangerous accumulation of wax. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and plaintiff appeals. The order dismissing the complaint is reversed.
The paragraphs of the complaint alleging negligence are as follows:
“3. At the time and place aforesaid the defendant, maintained its premises more particularly the dance floor in a careless and negligent manner and permitted the dance floor to get in a dangerous slippery condition by treating the dance floor with wax, powder and/or other floor compound to accumulate on said dance floor so as to render it unreasonably safe to accommodate the plaintiff. Plaintiff unaware of the dangerous slippery condition of the dance floor slipped and fell and suffered a fractured leg, divers cuts, bruises, lacerations and contusion's as well as other injuries of a serious and lasting nature.
“4. That the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, suffering and damages, was the negligence of the defendant and nuisance created by the defendant by permitting said dance floor to become and to remain in a condition that was not reasonably safe to accommodate the plaintiff, which said condition was known to the defendant or by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have been known, to. the defendant and was not known to the plaintiff.”
Since we are dealing with a business invitee, there is no difficulty regarding the existence of a duty upon which negligence may be based. Even the standard of care is easily ascertained. That is: “reasonable degree of care commensurate with the attending circumstances for the plaintiff’s safety.” 1 The difficulty is in determining whether the allegations of this complaint set forth a condition in violation of the standard of care. Dance floors are intended to be made slippery and every person who goes upon such a surface takes some chance of slipping.2 Upon the other hand there is no doubt that liability exists for the maintenance of an unsafe and hazardous condition on a dance floor.3 Undoubtedly an accumulation of wax in a particular spot can be dangerous.4 Viewed in its best possible light the complaint alleges such a condition and it is possible that the plaintiff may be able to meet the standard of proof necessary to support such an allegation.
Therefore the final judgment dismissing the complaint must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur. . Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Insurance Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So. 2d 302.
. See Fishman v. Brooklyn Jewish Center, Inc., 234 App.Div. 319, 255 N.Y.S. 124.
. Gough v. Wadhams Mills Grange, 279 App.Div. 825, 109 N.Y.S.2d 374. Also see annotation on “Liability of dance hall proprietor or operator for injury to patron.” 28 A.L.R.2d 612.
.First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Wylie, Fla.1950, 46 So. 2d 396; Brown v. Appleton Masonic Temple Ass’n, 243 Wis. 147, 9 N.W. 2d 637.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxymow v. Lake Maggiore Baptist Church OF ST. Petersburg, 212 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…r or occupant of the premises is normally considered in the law as an invitee. Messner v. Webb’s City, 62 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1952); Frederich’s Market, Inc. v. Knox, 66 So. 2d 251 (Fla.1953); Jackson v. Pike, 87 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1956); Durden v. Dranetz, 99 So. 2d 716 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist.1958); Walker v. Feltman, 111 So. 2d 76 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist.1959); Goldman v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., 244 F. 2d 413 (5 Cir. 1957); Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc. v. Sommer, 111 So. 2d 743 (Fla.App. 3rd Dist. 1959); J. G. Christo…
-
Carlin v. Goldman Indus., Inc., 347 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…t, apparently because of admissions in plaintiff-Sadie Carlin’s deposition disclosing assumption of the risk. This appeal ensued. We reverse. In this State, an injured party may have a cause of action for a fall on a dance floor. Durden v. Dranetz, 99 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1958). The Supreme Court of Florida has now determined that assumption of the risk is no longer available as a complete defense. See: Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977), opinion filed May 5, 1977.1 Therefore,…
-
Sussman v. McKNIGHT, 163 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Karen Gardens v. Walen, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 732. Compare Durden v. Dranetz, Fla.App.1958, 99 So. 2d 716.…
Authorities Cited
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1950)
- Nettie Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1941)