J. M. ST. PIERRE, APPELLANT,
v.
FOOD FAIR STORES, NORTH DADE, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE; MILTON MCBROOM, D/B/A BALLY KIDDIE RIDES AND GAMES, APPELLANT, V. FOOD FAIR STORES, NORTH DADE, INC., A 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.
Food Fair Stores sought indemnification from St. Pierre and McBroom for injuries arising from an amusement device on its premises, claiming a prior indemnity agreement. The Florida appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Food Fair, holding that indemnification agreements protecting against the indemnitee's own negligence are valid under Florida law.
Indemnification agreements protecting against the indemnitee's own ordinary negligence are valid and enforceable. The jury's verdict in favor of Food Fair was proper, and the agreement for indemnification in this case, which protected Food Fair against its own negligence, should not be disturbed.
“The agreement for indemnification in this cause was alleged to be one which protected Food Fair against its own negligence, and the jury resolved any conflict in the evidence in favor of Food Fair, and their verdict should not be disturbed. Such agreements have been held valid many times.”
Establishes the court's holding that indemnification agreements protecting against the indemnitee's own negligence are valid and enforceable
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn injury occurred on premises owned and operated by Food Fair Stores involving an amusement device (electrical hobby horse). Food Fair Stores claimed…
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 Common Law Indemnity cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to previous order of this court, the above cases were consolidated for purposes of oral argument. The appellants, by their appeals, seek reversal of a final judgment rendered on a counter-claim of common law indemnity arising out of an injury which occurred on premises owned and operated by the appellee, Food Fair Stores. The factual circumstances surrounding the nature of the injuries, which gave rise to this action, are set forth in the opinion of this court rendered this day in Food Fair Stores, North Dade, Inc., et al. v. Winkelmann, Fla.App., 135 So.2d 6.
Food Fair Stores contended that it had an indemnification agreement from the appellants prior to the time it permitted an amusement device to be brought upon its premises. Said indemnity was alleged by Food Fair to be against “ * * * any and all claims for losses, etc., resulting in the operation of said electrical hobby horse.” The defendants filed answers denying any such agreement. The pleadings were in conflict and the evidence adduced by all parties supported their pleadings and was, likewise, in conflict. Upon appropriate in*10structions, the matter was submitted to a jury which resolved the conflicts in favor of Food Fair, and a judgment was entered thereon which is the subject matter of this appeal.
The jury, which found for the injured party, established that Food Fair and the appellants, St. Pierre and McBroom, were guilty of negligence in the operation of the amusement device. In Food Fair et al. v. Winkelmann, supra, we have reversed the judgment as to the negligence of McBroom. The jury that determined the question of liability to the injured party also determined the question of liability under the indemnification agreement. Both these issues were submitted to the same jury, and no objection to this procedure has been preserved for review by this court.
The agreement for indemnification in this cause was alleged to be one which protected Food Fair against its own negligence, and the jury resolved any conflict in the evidence in favor of Food Fair, and their verdict should not be disturbed. Such agreements have been held valid many times. See Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway Co. v. Grant Brothers Construction Co., 228 U.S. 177, 33 S.Ct. 474, 57 L.Ed. 787; Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Koontz-Wagner Electric Co., 7 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 380; Rice v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 2 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 861; Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 902, 20 A.L.R.2d 695; Philippine Air Lines, Inc., v. Texas Engineering & Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 923; J. V. McNicholas Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 265; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Youngstown Boiler & Tank Co., 6 Cir., 1933, 64 F.2d 638; 175 A.L.R. 1.
The case of Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Inc., Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 575, relied on by appellants, is distinguishable from this cause in that the agreement referred to in the cited case provided only for indemnity against the negligence of the in-demnitor and not that of the indemnitee. An indemnity against losses includes indemnification against the indemnitee’s ordinary negligence. See Annotation, 175 A.L.R. 1, particularly §§ 20 and 73.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. Plaza Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1973)…. American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Tampa Armature Works, 315 F. 2d 856 (5th Cir. 1963). . 397 U.S. 203, 90 S.Ct. 880, 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970). . Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. Tennessee Corp., 421 F. 2d 970 (5th Cir. 1970). . Iiid., p. 973. . 135 So. 2d 9 (Fla.App.3d 1961), cert. den. 140 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1962).…
-
Ivey Plants, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 282 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…laza, Inc. v. Stewart, supra. In that case, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Thomas Awning and Tent Co., Inc. v. Toby’s Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc., 204 So. 2d 756 (Fla.App.1967), and St. Pierre v. Food Fair Stores, North Dade, Inc. (Fla.App.1961), 135 So. 2d 9, cert. den., 140 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1962), concluding that the intent to indemnify the indemnitee for his own negligence must be specifically provided for in the indemnity contract. An indemnification contract which sought to indemnify the indemnitee a…
-
Middleton v. Lomaskin, 266 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…lessors’ own negligence. We think the trial court was correct in entering a summary final judgment in favor of the lessors on the ground that the tenant waived liability of the lessors. St. Pierre v. Food Fair Stores, North Dade, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 9; Mutual Employees Trademart, Inc. v. Armour Service of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 170 So. 2d 64; Thomas Awning & Tent Co., Inc. v. Toby’s Twelfth Cafeteria, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 756; “Anno., Validity of contractual provisions by one othe…1 / 2
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
- Santa Fe v. Grant Bros. Constr. Co., 228 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1913)
- Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1951)
- Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. S. Pac. Co., 183 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1950)
- Food Fair Stores v. Winkelmann, 135 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- J. v. McNicholas Transfer Co. V. Pa. R. Co., 154 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1946)
- Rice v. Pa. R. Co., 202 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1953)
- Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Tex. Eng'g & Mfg. Co., Inc., 181 F.2d 923 (5th Cir. 1950)
- Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Koontz-Wagner Elec. Co., Inc., 233 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1956)
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Youngstown Boiler & Tank Co., 64 F.2d 638 (6th Cir. 1933)