MARGARET ROTH, A SINGLE WOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH FLOM, 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.
The court held that the slight change in sidewalk level did not present an unreasonable risk to a licensee.
The plaintiff, a licensee visiting a friend in the defendant's apartment building, fell after striking her toe against a rising portion of the sidewal…
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 Unreasonable Risk Of Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment for the defendant. The cause came on before the trial judge upon motions for summary judgment filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The cause was at issue and there were on file depositions of the plaintiff and the defendant and an affidavit of the plaintiff. In addition certain photographs were introduced and used by agreement of the parties. The trial judge correctly determined that there was no issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
It is concluded that the plaintiff in this case was on the premises of the defendant’s apartment building for the purpose of visiting a friend who was a tenant of the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff, in her relationship with the defendant, was a licensee upon the premises. See Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185.
The uncontroverted facts before the court revealed that the plaintiff struck her toe against a rising portion of sidewalk and fell. The rise or lip was occasioned by a settlement of one edge of the sidewalk at a joint. These facts established that the slight change in level was not such as to involve an unreasonable risk to the licensee. Cf. Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 653.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973)…illen, 284 So. 2d 209. A tenant’s social guest has been viewed only as a licensee as to the landlord, which is a perfectly logical relationship where there is no contact between them. Tomei v. Center, 116 So. 2d 251 (Fla.App.2d 1959); Roth v. Flom, 105 So. 2d 179 (Fla.App. 3d 1958); and Jackson v. Asselta, 160 So. 2d 167 (Fla.App. 3d 1964). These are areas requiring guidelines. We resolve our dilemma in a troublesome area by concluding, and we so hold, that the class of invitees now under the present defini…
-
Tomei v. Raymond Hugh Ctr. & Alice Mildred Ctr., 116 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…relationship between the plaintiff and the tenant or the plaintiff and the landlord. In these circumstances, the legal status of the plaintiff, Eunice Tomei, in her relationship with the landlord is that of licensee. See Roth v. Flom, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 179, 180. The Court in that case said: “It is concluded that the plaintiff in this case was on the premises of the defendant’s apartment building for the purpose of visiting a friend who was a tenant of the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff, in her re…
-
Romaine Ortner v. Linch, 128 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…questions for jury trial. In holding that the plaintiff was a licensee and not an invitee, the trial court cited and relied on Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 653; McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 185 and Roth v. Flom, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 179. In those cases plaintiffs were held to be licensees under other circumstances, and on premises other than a hotel. The McNulty case involved a person attending service at church. The Stewart case concerned a person going into a service station to o…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ST. Johns Cnty. v. Murphy, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1957)
- Goldberg v. Straus, 45 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1950)
- Stewart v. Tex. Co., 67 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1953)