PAULINE SHAPIRO, APPELLANT,
v.
F. W. WOOLWORTH, 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.
Pauline Shapiro appeals a summary judgment dismissing her negligence action against F.W. Woolworth after she slipped on oil or grease in the store's entranceway. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper in a negligence case where material factual questions remain about the defendant's duty and the plaintiff's comparative fault.
Summary judgment was improper because the question of whether the manager's failure to remedy the dangerous condition after being placed on notice constituted actionable negligence is ordinarily for jury determination. Additionally, the plaintiff's failure to look down does not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law where there was no evidence the hazard existed when she entered and no reason for her to apprehend danger.
“It is clear that summary judgment should be cautiously granted in negligence cases since the issues of negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily for the jury's determination.”
Establishes the controlling principle that summary judgment is disfavored in negligence actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff entered defendant's store to purchase a bathing cap and observed nothing in the entranceway. Upon exiting the same entranceway, she slipped …
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 Notice Of Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in a *807personal injury action. The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the entranceway of defendant’s store. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was based upon the pleadings and deposition of the plaintiff. The deposition reveals that the plaintiff had entered the defendant’s premises for the purpose of purchasing a bathing cap, at which time she had not observed any substance in the entranceway; that upon leaving the premises through the same en-tranceway, she slipped upon a substance described as oil or grease. Her deposition further reveals that following the fall, she was assisted by the store manager who indicated to her that someone had dropped a bottle of oil or suntan lotion and that he [the manager] had picked up the glass or sent someone to pick it up; that during the time he had gone to mail a letter the fall had occurred. The plaintiff’s testimony showed that upon leaving the premises she was looking ahead; that she was not looking down and did not see the substance in the entranceway. She further testified that she could have seen the oil had she looked down.
The judgment entered does not indicate whether the granting of the defendant’s motion was based upon the plaintiff’s failure to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant or upon a finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
It is clear that summary judgment should be cautiously granted in negligence cases since the issues of negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily for the jury’s determination. Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Co., 152 Fla. 3, 10 So.2d 488; Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla. App.1958, 101 So.2d 181. Upon a careful review of the pleadings and deposition, we conclude that the question of whether or not the manager’s failure to remedy the dangerous condition after being placed upon notice constituted actionable negligence, is one for jury determination.
Next, we proceed to the question of whether or not the pleadings and deposition of the plaintiff demonstrate that she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
In support of the summary judgment, the appellee has cited Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co., Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 477, for the proposition that where a person has crossed a hazard he cannot complain of lack of knowledge, even though approach from the other direction may conceal the hazard. In the Earley case, the plaintiff entered the cafeteria by crossing over a door mat and upon leaving, tripped on the mat. As pointed out in Chambers v. Southern Wholesale, Inc., Fla.1956, 92 So.2d 188, summary judgment cases arise in a wide variety of factual situations and each must be considered in the light of its own facts. Here there was no showing that the substance upon which the plaintiff slipped was in the entranceway at the time she entered the store, but on the contrary, the only evidence is that she did not observe any substance in walking over the same area and did not slip. The pleadings and deposition do not suggest that the plaintiff should have suspected the existence of a dangerous condition, and in the absence of such showing, it would not necessarily constitute contributory negligence to fail to look out for danger when there was no reason to apprehend any. See First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Wylie, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 396; Chambers v. Southern Wholesale, Inc., supra; Wallace v. Boca Raton Properties, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 637; City of Tampa v. Banks, Fla.1960, 120 So.2d 788.
The summary judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grimes v. Fam. Dollar Stores OF Fla., Inc., 194 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…s true even where there is no conflict in the evidence, provided that inferences reasonably deducible therefrom cast doubt upon [*429] material issues. Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company, 182 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Shapiro v. F.W. Woolworth, 120 So. 2d 806, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Whenever questions of negligence or contributory negligence are close, any doubt should always be resolved in favor of a jury trial. Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 159 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). Viewing the re…
-
Foster v. Gulfstream Press, Inc., 134 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…d 651. This rule is applied with particular caution in negligence cases which are extremely troublesome due to the varied fact situations which they present. Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 181; Shapiro v. F. W. Woolworth, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 806; Holmes v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc., supra. In Buck v. Hardy, supra, this court, citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.), said: “[Ijssues of negligence, including such related issues as contributory negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible…
-
Acosta v. Daughtry, 268 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…e awful, would cock its hammer and pull the trigger while the muzzle was aimed at his friend ? 2 In short, the position of Acosta falls squarely within the protective aegis of this Court’s philosophy in Shapiro v. F. W. Woolworth, Fla.App. 3, 1960, 120 So. 2d 806, 807: “The pleadings and deposition do not suggest that the plaintiff should have suspected the existence of a dangerous condition, and in the absence of such showing, it would not necessarily constitute contributory negligence to fail to look out f…
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
- Abarca v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1950)
- Chambers v. Southern Wholesale, 92 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1956)
- Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Co., Inc., 152 Fla. 3 (Fla. 1942)
- Wallace v. Boca Raton Props., Inc., 99 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- In re Florida Appellate Rules, 120 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1960)