MEYER SCHNEIDER, APPELLANT,
v.
K. S. B. REALTY & INVESTING CORP., HERBERT H. ROBBINS AND S. SIDNEY RAFFEL, D/B/A CARILLON HOTEL, 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 court held that the hotel owner's affidavits were insufficient to conclusively demonstrate a reasonable inspection of the chair, thus precluding summary judgment.
A hotel guest was injured when a chair in his room collapsed. The guest sued the hotel for negligence, alleging the chair was defective and the hotel …
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 Inference Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant sued the appellees, the owners and operators of a hotel, for injuries he received while a guest in the hotel, when a chair in the room assigned to him collapsed under him, causing him to fall with resultant injury. The appellees moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and this appeal followed.
The appellant was the first occupant of a room in the hotel on a floor which was newly opened for occupancy of guests. He charged appellees with negligence in failing to furnish reasonably safe premises for his use as an invitee, by supplying a defective chair, and alleged that the appellees knew or by reasonable inspection could have and should have known that the chair was defective.
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was supported by affidavits of the chief *399housekeeper1 and of the assistant manager of the hotel 2 stating they had inspected the room and furniture including the chair. Plaintiff filed an affidavit, in opposition to the motion, which described how the chair broke when he first sat on it.3
The question of negligence was one to be determined by a jury. Here it hinged on whether the chair was defective, and, if so, whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect and whether the inspection which was made was reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances.
Appellant argues, and we must agree, that appellees’ affidavits were not sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that a reasonable and proper inspection of the chair was made. The alleged failure to inspect with which we are concerned here is an initial inspection of new premises by an innkeeper to determine if the premises meet the requirement for the innkeeper to provide his business invitees a reasonably safe place for their sojourn. Miller v. Shull, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 521; Goldin v. Lipkind, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 539, 27 A.L.R.2d 816; Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 218; Steinberg v. Irwin Operating Co., Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 460, 58 A.L.R.2d 1198.
The appellant-plaintiff, in opposing the motion for summary judgment was entitled to the benefit of all inferences which were reasonably to be drawn from the facts disclosed. Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 175; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915. Here, from the fact that the chair failed to support appellant, it could be inferred that it was defective. Whether the defect was one discoverable on reasonable inspection was an undetermined question. Since the defect, if present, was the failure of the chair to bear the weight of its first user, it was a permissible inference that it would have broken no matter who sat on it. The type of inspection the affidavits described was insufficient to foreclose the question of whether the appellees by a reasonable inspection could have or should have known of such defect, especially since the inspection did not include testing the chair for weight bearing; and the learned trial judge was in error in holding as a matter of law that the affidavits showed adequate inspection and conclusively determined the- issue of negligence. See Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Gitlin, 1941, 146 Fla. 242, 1 So.2d 191; Harvey v. Maistrosky, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 810.
*400The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nance v. Linzy Ball and June Ball, 134 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…int, together with the statements in the depositions and supporting affidavit submitted by the plaintiff, must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Schneider v. K. S. B. Realty & Investing Corp., Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 398. It must also be accepted as law that the co-defendants owed the plaintiff and other business invitees the duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition and to guard against subjecting patrons to dangers known or whic…
-
Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A., 137 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)…ect in the chair “would have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection,” and there was some evidence which indicated that the chair had not been used for some time prior to the accident. Similarly, in Schneider v. K.S.B. Realty & Investing Corp., 128 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), the district court held that whether the hotel’s inspection was reasonable and should have revealed the defect was a question for the jury given that it could be inferred that the chair was defective since it was brand new a…1 / 2
-
Belflower v. Risher, 206 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…anded. Reversed. CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. . See generally 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence, § 45 and cases cited therein. . See King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 1913, 66 Fla. 246, 63 So. 659; Schneider v. K.S.B. Realty & Investing Corp., Fla. App.1961, 128 So. 2d 398.…
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
- City OF Miami v. Lager, 105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Goldin v. Lipkind, 49 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1950)
- Miller v. Shull, 48 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1950)
- Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Inc., 105 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., 66 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1953)
- Essie Steinberg and Louis Steinberg v. Irwin Operating Co., 90 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1956)
- Harvey v. Maistrosky, 114 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Econ. Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Gitlin, 146 Fla. 242 (Fla. 1941)