GENE P. SUNDAY, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL IKINSON, DOING BUSINESS AS ALLIED LINENS, 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 pedestrian was injured when he tripped on a display table protruding into a sidewalk at a corner store entrance. The trial court entered summary judgment for the store owner, finding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed, holding that the triability of whether a pedestrian turning a corner could observe a relatively small obstruction presented a factual question for the jury.
The court reversed summary judgment because the question of whether the plaintiff could have observed and avoided the 18-inch obstruction while turning a corner presented a material factual issue that must be submitted to a jury, not decided by summary judgment.
“Inasmuch as a summary final judgment for the defendant in a negligence action is in essence a directed verdict for the defendant before trial, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and grant to the plaintiff all reasonable inferences from the facts before the court.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for summary judgments in negligence cases—facts must be viewed favorably to the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant's store was located at the corner of Flagler Street and S.E. Third Avenue in Miami. A 24-inch display table was positioned in the Flagler St…
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 Contributory Negligence As A Matter Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendant. The action was for personal injuries alleged to have been incurred when the plaintiff tripped upon a display table in the front of defendant’s store. The judgment was entered upon the complaint, answer, plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories, the depositions of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s wife and the deposition of a witness to the accident. In addition photographs of the area were identified.
*670The controlling question is did the trial judge err in finding the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In the determination of this question, we must consider only undisputed facts, since any material factual issue must be submitted to a jury. Delany v. Breeding’s Homestead Drug Co., Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 116. Inasmuch as a summary final judgment for the defendant in a negligence action is in essence a directed verdict for the defendant before trial, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and grant to the plaintiff all reasonable inferences from the facts before the court.
Defendant’s place of business was directly on the corner of Flagler Street and S.E. Third Avenue in Miami, Florida. The store had an entrance which was cut at an angle across the corner. Exactly on the corner was a 24 inch column and the entrance to defendant’s store was contiguous to the column on S.E. Third Avenue and contiguous to the same column on Flagler Street. The display table was in the Flag-ler Street portion of the entrance and extended eighteen inches out over the Flag-ler Street sidewalk. The plaintiff turned the corner and in his own language, “started to walk” when he tripped over the leg of the protruding table. Upon the crucial question of the time or distance during which the plaintiff could have observed the eighteen inch wide obstruction, the pictures and the depositions were not very enlightening. It is certain, the distance and time for observation were short.
The factual situation in this case is different from that before the trial judge in Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 53. In the cited case the obstruction was larger and the plaintiff’s view was clear for at least one-fourth of a city block. In the case now before us, the plaintiff was turning a corner and the photographs would support the conclusion of reasonable men that he could not have seen the protruding portion of the table or taken more than one or two steps before tripping over it. The circumstances of the instant case are much closer to those set forth in McDermott v. Engstrom, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 553. Accordingly the summary judgment is reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, T., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Food Fair Stores v. Winkelmann, 135 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ed in taking a cause from the jury on a plea of contributory negligence. See Fendrick et al. v. Faeges, Fla.App.1960, 117 So. 2d 858; Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., v. Moroni et al., Fla.App.1958, 113 So. 2d 275; Sunday v. Ikinson, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 669; Dempsey-Vanderbilt Hotel, Inc., v. Huisman, 153 Fla. 800, 15 So. 2d 903. The appellate courts of this State have many times held that the mere fact that the injured party could have seen the dangerous condition if he had looked down this would not…
-
City OF Miami v. Eichardt, 115 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…n, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 3, 65 A.L.R.2d 957; Palov v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 780; Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So. 2d 181. . Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 53; cf. Sunday v. Ikinson, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 669…
-
Conwell v. Zayre OF Miami, Inc., 161 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…of negligence of the defendant and of contributory negligence of the plaintiff plainly were triable issues. See Brisson v. W. T. Grant Company, Fla.1955, 79 So. 2d 771; McDermott v. Engstrom, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 553; Sunday v. Ikinson, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 669; Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 575; Hanson v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 573. Accordingly the summary judgment is reversed. Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- Delany v. Breeding's Homestead Drug Co., 93 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1957)
- Gertrude Jacobs and Charles Jacobs v. Claughton, 97 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- McDERMOTT v. Alf C. Engstrom and Florence Engstrom, 81 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1955)