NATALIE H. CARTER AND HUBERT M. CARTER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
JACK C. PARKER, SR., AND LYDIA PARKER, 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.
Appellants filed suit for negligence after the plaintiff-wife was injured when tripping over a chair leg in appellees' cocktail lounge. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the pleadings and deposition raised genuine issues of material fact regarding breach of duty and comparative negligence that should be decided by a jury.
The appellate court held that the pleadings and deposition evidence raised genuine issues of material fact regarding both whether defendants breached their duty of care and whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Therefore, summary judgment was improper, and the case should proceed to trial for jury determination.
“a moving party for summary judgment admits the basic facts established favorable to the adverse party and such facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the adverse party”
Establishes the standard for evaluating summary judgment motions in favor of the non-moving party
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Natalie H. Carter sustained injuries when she tripped over the leg of a chair while in defendants' cocktail lounge. Plaintiffs alleged the l…
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 Duty Of Care To Invitees cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees, defendants below,
Suit was filed to recover damages for injuries sustained by, plaintiff wife when she tripped over the leg of a chair in defendants’ cocktail lounge. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendants were negligent in maintaining their premises in such a dimly lit state as to constitute a danger to patrons of the establishment, in arranging their tables and chairs in a crowded and congested manner, and in using chairs which had “extreme protruding legs” and thus created a dangerous condition to persons moving about the premises.
Defendants filed no answer, but moyed for summary judgment based upon the pleadings and plaintiff-wife’s deposition. The trial court entered summary judgment in defendants’ favor without stating the basis for its ruling.
The question before us is whether the pleadings and deposition show the existence of any issue of material fact upon which reasonable men might disagree. It is well settled that a moving party for summary judgment admits the basic facts established favorable to the adverse party and such facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the adverse party. Smith v. Musso, 1S1 So.2d 475 (D.C.A.FIa. 1963). Furthermore, extreme caution should be exercised in granting summary judgments in negligence cases, since the issue of negligence is ordinarily a jury question. Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So.2d 181 (D.C.A.Fla.1958). Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants’ lounge was kept in a darkened state; that the tables and chairs were arranged in a congested and hazardous manner; that the chairs on the premises were constructed in such a manner as to create a dangerous condition; and that because of the dimly lit atmosphere, patrons of the lounge were not aware of these dangerous conditions. Plaintiff-wife’s deposition tends to support the fact that the lounge was dark; that the tables and chairs were close together; and that the base of these chairs protruded at an extreme angle.
There is little doubt that plaintiffs were invitees of defendants’ place of business. As such, defendants owed plaintiffs the duty of keeping their premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard plaintiffs against dangers of which defendants were cognizant or might reasonably have foreseen. McNulty v. Hurley, 97 So.2d 185 (Fla.1957). We are of the view that the pleadings and deposition show the existence of a fact issue as to whether defendants breached this duty owed to plaintiffs. Thus, it was error to grant summary judgment in defendants’ favor.
Defendants contend that plaintiff-wife’s deposition shows she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and thus is precluded from recovery even if defendants were negligent. This issue is also one for a jury to determine and, under the circumstances, it would have been error to grant defendants a summary judgment on that basis.
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and HEWITT, ROBERT S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Warner v. Fla. JAI Alai, Inc., 235 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1970)…realization that an intoxicated person may create a disturbance where a sober citizen would not. These courts have readily found arising from such foreseeability a duty on the part of travernkeep-ers to protect other customers. In Carter v. Parker, 183 So. 2d 3 (Fla.App.2d 1966), where a woman patron tripped over a chair leg in the tavern, the Second District Court reversed summary judgment for defendants and held that it was a question of fact whether the defendant bar operator had breached his duty to ma…
-
Bianchi v. Garber, 528 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…4th DCA 1972) (Evidence as to quality and quantity of the lighting at the edge of a parking lot where the invitee plaintiff tripped and fell presented questions for the jury precluding summary judgment in favor of the defendant.); Carter v. Parker, 183 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). See generally Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1973); Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Pedreira v. Silva, 468 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We reverse the summary final jud…
-
Thompson v. Ward Enters., 341 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…courts of [*839] Florida have rendered several opinions holding that a jury question on foreseeability is presented under circumstances similar to the present case. See Johnson v. Hatoum, 239 So. 2d 22 (Fla.4th DCA 1970).1 See also Carter v. Parker, 183 So. 2d 3 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); and 62 Am.Jur.2d Premises Liability § 123. In the present case, there was no curb nor was the plaintiff afforded the protection of the building inasmuch as he was standing outside of the supermarket on the sidewalk waiting for de…
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
- ST. Johns Cnty. v. Murphy, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1957)
- Saunders v. Kaplan, 101 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)