HENRIETTA N. MEYER, APPELLANT,
v.
ABE PITZELE AND RELIA PITZELE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate error in the application of Indiana law regarding a landlord's duty to a tenant's guest who was injured on a poorly lit staircase.
No, the trial court did not err. The appellate court found no Indiana case law that would support a reversal of the trial judge's determination, and the appellant failed to demonstrate error.
“The accident occurred in the State of Indiana and therefore in determining whether the complaint stated a cause of action, we are called upon to apply the law of the State of Indiana.”
Establishes the governing law for the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a guest of a tenant, fell down an unlighted back staircase in gathering darkness after leaving an apartment. The accident occurred in I…
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 Landlord-Tenant Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff appeals a final judgment dismissing her complaint. The accident occurred when the plaintiff, a guest of a tenant of the defendant-landlord, left an apartment by an unlighted back staircase in gathering darkness, after entering the apartment from the front entrance, and fell in a stair well between the stair landing and a gate at the end of a walkway. The accident occurred in the State of Indiana and therefore in determining whether the complaint stated a cause of action, we are called upon to apply the law of the State of Indiana. Astor Electric Service v. Cabrera, Fla. 1952, 62 So.2d 759; Myrick v. Griffin, 146 Fla. 148, 200 So. 383.
We have examined the Indiana cases cited us by appellant and appellee. In addition, we have examined cases cited in the legal encyclopedias and digests and have found no case which would authorize a reversal of the trial judge’s determination. Therefore the appellant having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gries Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…; First National Bank of Searcy, Arkansas v. Collins, 360 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Horton v. Unigard Insurance Company, 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Shotkin v. Deehl, 148 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, 122 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). We reject Gries’ contention that the addition of the words “with prejudice” makes the order final. In so doing, we do not overlook Segal v. Garrigues, 320 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), which in no uncertain terms states that an…
-
Hopkins v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 201 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1967)…pellee in which this court has given lip service to the place-of-wrong rule reveals that there was, in fact, no claim of conflict between the law of this, the forum, state and the law of the place-of-wrong state. See Meyer v. Pitzele, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So. 2d 228; Myrick v. Griffin, 1941, 146 Fla. 148, 200 So. 383. In Astor Electric Service v. Cabrera, Fla. 1952, 62 So. 2d 759, the choice-of-law problem was as between the law of the domicile of the parties (Puerto Rico) and Florida, which was the forum as we…
-
Wash. Sec. Co. v. Tracy's Plumbing & Pumps, Inc., 166 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…la.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 473; Herpel, Inc. v. Pfundston, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 620. The Third District Court of Appeal has held likewise in Shotkin v. Deehl, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 538, (Law); cf. Mitchell v. Italian-American Club, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 228 (Chancery). The character of the order remains interlocutory whether granted at law or in chancery, and we have dismissed plenary appeals improperly taken from interlocutory orders. See e. g. Finneran v. Finneran, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 844, cert.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Astor Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Cabrera, 62 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1952)
- Myrick v. Nettie L. Griffin, 146 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1941)