ALICE HANSON AND JACOB HANSON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHELL'S CITY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 72-year-old woman fell in a supermarket parking lot and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the plaintiff's deposition and photographs showing the hazard was visible, but the appellate court reversed, holding that visibility alone does not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Visibility of a hazard alone does not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law. The question of contributory negligence must consider all circumstances, including the plaintiff's reasonable conduct under the specific conditions, and cannot be resolved by summary judgment based solely on whether the hazard was visible.
“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 non-liability for in all these cases the condition which caused the harm was visible.”
Establishes that visibility is not the sole determinant of contributory negligence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlice Hanson, age 72, went shopping at the defendant's supermarket. After shopping, she crossed the street to the parking lot to find her husband and …
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
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in a negligence action brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the appellant, Alice Hanson, when she fell in the defendant’s parking lot. The judgment was entered primarily on consideration of the deposition of the plaintiff and certain photographs of the area of the accident which in the opinion of the trial judge showed contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Alice Hanson, a seventy-two year old housewife went shopping with her husband in the defendant’s supermarket. Mrs. Hanson was let out of the car in front of the store while her husband went to park the car in the parking lot. He then joined Mrs. Hanson in the store and together they made several purchases. Mr. Hanson and a “bag boy” left the store with the purchases ahead of Mrs. Hanson. After waiting for some traffic to pass, she crossed the street to the parking lot. She was looking for her husband and the “bag boy” when she spotted the family car and thereupon stepped from the sidewalk into the parking lot where she fell and sustained personal injuries. The complaint alleges that the general area of the fall was built up with an accumulation of surplus asphalt over the normal surface and that there was a hole in such surface with a pipe protruding therefrom.
The deposition of Mrs. Hanson discloses in part as follows:
“Q. Now, how far off the sidewalk were you, approximately, when you fell? * * * A. I wasn’t looking at the sidewalk or what was in front of me. I was looking at where the car was.
“Q. Now, there was nothing to obstruct your view of the hole, had you been looking down at the time that you stepped off the sidewalk? A. No.”
Even if such testimony warrants the conclusion that the area alleged to be defective would have been visible to Mrs. Hanson had she been looking in that direction and not for her car, the question of contributory negligence would still be open. The Supreme Court in City of Jacksonville v. Stokes et al., Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 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 non-liability 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.”
See also Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 575; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915; *575Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla. App.1958, 103 So.2d 884.
In the case at bar, the deposition of Mrs. Hanson and the exhibits contained in the record do not show contributory negligence as a matter of law, and accordingly, it was error to summarily adjudicate that question. It follows, therefore, that the judgment appealed from be reversed.
It is so ordered.
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)…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 parking lot. The District Court of Appeal, Third District said: “Even if such testimony warrants the conclusion that the area alleged to be defective would have been visible to Mrs. Hanson had she been looking in that direction…
-
United Teachers OF Dade & UTD Towers, Inc. v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 378 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…rman v. Pinellas County, 250 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); City of Treasure Island v. Decker, 174 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Board of Adjustment of City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Kremer, 139 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); Phillips v. County of Dade, 133 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Wexler v. Ring, 125 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). It is true, as urged by the appel-lees, that Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B) provides that a district court of appeal may review by certiorari “final orders of circuit courts acting…
-
Bd. OF Adjustment OF City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Kremer, 139 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…the statutory certiorari provided for in Ch. 176, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., is not the traditional certiorari proceeding but rather an original proceeding de novo. As such it is reviewable in this court by appeal. Phillips v. County of Dade, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 573; Wexler v. Ring, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 883; and State v. Furen, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 6. We, therefore, find no error in the procedural aspects of this cause. The appellant seeks reversal of the judgment of the circuit court on the theory of hard…
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 Miami v. Lager, 105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Purdon v. Cohen, 126 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Int'l HOD Carriers' v. Heftler Constr. Co., 103 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)