MARY D. PARCE, AND HER HUSBAND, GEORGE PARCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLOTSAM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A THE CLOTHES HORSE, 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 customer fell from a three-legged stool in a clothing store after slipping because the stool straddled a rug and slick terrazzo floor. The trial court granted summary judgment for the store, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should be decided by a jury rather than as a matter of law.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. The issues of negligence and contributory negligence should not be resolved on summary judgment but instead should be submitted to a jury to determine what was reasonable under the circumstances.
“The plaintiff, business invitee, was entitled to be furnished with a reasonably safe place to transact business with the defendant, appellee.”
Establishes the duty owed by a business to its invitees—a foundational principle in premises liability law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Parce, a business invitee, was in the defendant's clothing store when she fell from a three-legged stool. The stool was positioned with some legs…
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 Contributory Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff was a business invitee on the premises of the defendant, the operator of a clothing store. She fell in arising from a three-legged stool which she alleged was placed so that one or more of the legs were on a rug and one or more on a slick terrazzo floor. In her complaint, the appellant alleged injury by reason of the maintenance of an unsafe condition on the premises. The trial judge concluded that the facts were essentially undisputed and entered a summary final judgment as a matter of law for the defendant, appellee.
There is no controversy as to the evidentiary facts involved. The question is therefore whether or not these facts, viewed with all reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, are such that the defendant was entitled to the summary final judgment as a matter of law. Farrey v. Bettendorf, Fla.1957, 96 So.2d 889, 892; Schneider v. K. S. B. Realty & Investing Corp., Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 398. The plaintiff, business invitee, was entitled to be furnished with a reasonably safe place to transact business with the defendant, appellee. Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366 (1942); Miller v. Shull, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 521. It is apparent that, under the conditions set forth, the determination of what was reasonable under the circumstances should be made by a jury. See Schneider v. K. S. B. Realty & Investing Corp., supra.
*442Inasmuch as it appears that the injury-occurred the first time that the plaintiff, appellant, used the stool, this case is not such as to he an exception to the principle that contributory negligence is an issue ordinarily reserved for a jury. Saunders v. ICaplan, Fla.App.1958,'101 So.2d 181.
Having determined that the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should not have been tried upon the motion for summary judgment, the summary final judgment for the defendant is reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Grand Union Co. v. Devlin, 213 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ented on the issue of whether the defendant Grand Union had been negligent. See Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners v. Gitlin, 146 Fla. 242, 1 So. 2d 191 (1941); Harvey v. Maistrosky, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 810; and Parce v. Flotsam, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 440. Notwithstanding the fact that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict of negligence, it is necessary to reverse and remand this cause for a new trial solely on the question of damages. [*490] The evidence reflects that the plaint…
Authorities Cited
- Matson v. TIP TOP Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1942)
- Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1957)
- Miller v. Shull, 48 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1950)
- In re Application of Marion E. Sibley to Resign from the Bar of the State of Fla., 151 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1942)
- Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Meyer Schneider v. K. S. B. Realty & Investing Corp., 128 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)