MELITINA VALIENTE, ETC.
v.
GARDEN TECHS LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INC.
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 contractor is relieved from liability for injuries to a third party caused by patent defects in completed work that has been accepted by the property owner.
[1] A contractor is relieved from liability for injuries sustained by a third party when the contractor has completed the work, the property owner has accepted the work, and…
[2] Whether an alleged defect is patent or latent is generally a question of fact for the jury, precluding summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a contractor is relieved from liability for injuries sustained to a third party where the contractor has completed the work, the owner of the property has accepted the work, and the defect that caused the injury to the third party is patent”
Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462, 467 (Fla. 1958)
Melitina Valiente brought an appeal challenging a summary judgment entered in favor of Garden Techs Landscaping Contractor & Property Maintenance Inc.…
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 Slavin Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462, 467 (Fla. 1958) (holding that a contractor is relieved from liability for injuries sustained to a third party where the contractor has completed the work, the owner of the property has accepted the work, and the defect that caused the injury to the third party is patent); Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Co., 254 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), review denied, SC18-1756, 2019 WL 1512709 (Fla. 2019);
Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc., 971 So. 2d 918, 924-925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“We acknowledge that in most instances, whether an alleged defect is patent or latent is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted. However, in the instant case, as the undisputed material facts demonstrate that, as a matter of law, the alleged defects were patent, and that the injury occurred after Fisher completed its work on the Pottery Barn store and Williams-Sonoma accepted Fisher’s work, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Fisher under the Slavin doctrine as to the negligence count.”) (citations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brucker v. Ga. Cas. Co. (E.D. Mo. 1926)…e of Washington. The courts of that state have said this about the action; “A garnishment proceeding is neither more nor less than an action by the defendant against the garnishee for the use of the plaintiff.” See State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 67 Wash. 321, 121 P. 460; State ex rel. v. Wyman, 40 Wash. 443, 82 P. 875, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, 111 Am. St. Rep. 915, 5 Ann. Cas. 775. The right of a change of venue is also recognized. State ex rel. v. Superior Court, 40 Wash. 443, 82 P. 875, 2 L. R. A. (N.…
Authorities Cited
- Slavin v. Sanford KAY, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1958)
- Nicholas Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc., 971 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Melitina Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Co., Inc., 254 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)