H. B. PURDON AND MATTIE B. PURDON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOE COHEN D/B/A VENICE LINEN SHOP, 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 60-year-old woman fell over a photographer's tripod in a store and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the plaintiff's deposition statement that the tripod would have been visible if she had been looking in that direction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that contributory negligence cannot be determined as a matter of law based solely on visibility.
The court held that summary judgment on the ground of contributory negligence was improper. Visibility alone does not settle the issue of contributory negligence as a matter of law; rather, the jury must consider whether the plaintiff used due care for her own safety taking into account all circumstances, including whether she should reasonably have been aware of the danger given the likelihood of encountering it.
“If visibility alone settled contributory negligence every case of slipping on a floor or of encountering any stationary object would automatically be a case of nonliability for in all these cases the condition which caused the harm was visible. The question always is whether the plaintiff used due care for his own safety, taking into account all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one, but still only one of the circumstances.”
Establishes that visibility is not the sole determinant of contributory negligence; the question is whether plaintiff exercised due care considering all circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Purdon, a 60-year-old housewife, entered the defendant's store to shop for advertised rugs. A salesman led her toward the back of the store where…
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 Due Care cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in a negligence action brought to recover for injuries sustained by appellant, Mattie B. Purdon, when she fell down in defendant’s store. The judgment was entered primarily on consideration of statements made by plaintiff in her deposition, which the Court held showed contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Mattie B. Purdon, a 60 year old. housewife, went shopping in defendant’s store for some rugs which had been advertised. She was met at the front door by a salesman who informed her that the rugs were in the back of the store. The salesman then led the way to the back of the store, Mrs. Purdon walking about five feet behind him. She tripped over a tripod holding a light that was a part of a photographer’s equipment (the photographer was there' at the instance of the owner of the store). One leg of the tripod extended out into the aisle at the bottom of the counters. She did not see the tripod leg but was looking toward the direction in which the salesman was leading her, that is, the rug display; she was about five feet to the rear of the salesman and apparently he was about five feet from the rug display.
The deposition of Mrs. Purdon discloses :
“Q. It was clearly visible there, had you been looking in that direction, is that right? A. Yes, I guess so.” (Italics supplied.)
The Supreme Court in City of Jacksonville v. Stokes et al., 74 So.2d 278, at text page 278, said:
“If visibility alone settled contributory negligence every case of slipping on a floor or of encountering any stationary object would automatically be a case of nonliability for in all these cases the condition which caused the harm was visible. The question always is whether the plaintiff used due care for his own safety, taking into account all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one, but still only one of the circumstances.
“The question is whether one should be aware of the danger. This de*576pends largely upon the likelihood of encountering danger. Very rarely do objects from above cause us harm, so persons are not careless who do not go about examining the sky. One need not look for danger unless there is reason to expect it.”
See also Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla.App. Third District, 103 So. 2d 884.
We believe that a question for a jury is produced here and the judgment is accordingly .reversed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc., 160 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…tributory negligence and bar recovery as the trial [*136] judge apparently concluded.”); McCain v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., Fla.App., 110 So. 2d 718, 68 A.L.R.2d 1194 (a minor of eight years walking into glass door); Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App., 126 So. 2d 575 (customer tripping over tripod in store — District Court of Appeal, Second District); Sneed v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.App., 128 So. 2d 166 (condition of street); Hanson v. Shell’s City Inc., Fla.App., 133 So. 2d 573 (defective paving in parkin…
-
Grall v. Risden, 167 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…ot contributory negligence to fail to look out for danger when there is no reason to apprehend any,” Crosby v. Donaldson, 1928, 95 Fla. 365, 116 So. 231, has no application to the case at bar. The plaintiff relies upon Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 575, but that case also involved a movable object located in the aisle of a department store, and the plaintiff in that case was being led by one of the defendant’s salesmen. The fact that an object is movable rather than fixed was expressly recognized…
-
Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Co., Inc., 141 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…nto account all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one, but still only one of the circumstances.” See also Hanson v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla. App.1961, 133 So. 2d 573; Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 575; Warring v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 915; Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So. 2d 884. It follows that the judgment appealed should be, and is accordingly, reversed. Reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Int'l HOD Carriers' v. Heftler Constr. Co., 103 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)