MAI KAI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RICHARD C. REILLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY COLUCCI ET AL., 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.
Mai Kai, Inc. and architect Richard Reilly appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Mary Colucci for injuries caused by a decorative fan counterweight that fell from the ceiling. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that both the architect and the business owner had duties to ensure safe premises and to disclose knowledge of increased structural stresses.
The court affirmed judgment against both defendants. The architect was liable for breach of his supervisory duties because substantial competent evidence showed he knew the rod extension added weight and stress on the weld but failed to disclose this knowledge. The business owner, Mai Kai, Inc., had a non-delegable duty to keep its premises reasonably safe for invited guests and was liable for damages resulting from breach of that duty.
“The architect testified that he knew that the additional extension of the counterweight rod added additional weight and that this would cause an increase of the stress on the weld but he did not impart that knowledge to the owner or the fabricator.”
Establishes the architect's knowledge of the hazard and his failure to disclose it, which was critical to finding him liable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants designed, fabricated, and installed special decorative fans in a restaurant ceiling. The architect prepared plans that did not contempl…
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.
Defendants, Mai Kai, Inc. and Richard C. Reilly, appeal a judgment entered after trial by jury for plaintiffs, Mary Colucci and her husband, Bart Colucci. The action was based upon injuries to the plaintiff-wife caused by a metal counterweight to a special kind of decorative fan falling from above while she was seated for dining.
Reilly, the architect, prepared plans and specifications for the fan. The original design was on a principle different from that ultimately used in the actual construction of the fans. After consultations on the first plans the owner requested the architect and the fabricator to prepare a less expensive fan. The architect thereafter revised the original plans. Neither the original plans nor the revised plans contemplated counterweights. When the fans were finally fabricated each contained counterweights which the architect observed in witnessing the trial run, but there was never any revision of plans to-include counterweights.
Shortly after installation of the fans in. the ceiling on the premises of the defendant, Mai Kai, a squeak developed. At a-conference the owner, the fabricator and the architect came to a consensus that extending the length of the metal counterweight rod might remedy the squeak. On their direction the counterweight rod was-extended. The extension added about six pounds in weight and it added an increase-of the stress on the weld joining the counterweight rod to the collar on the shaft. The architect testified that he knew that the additional extension of the counterweight rod added additional weight and that this would cause an increase of the stress on the weld but he did not impart that knowledge to the owner or the fabricator. Less than a week after the lengthening-of the counterweight rods the weld broke-causing the plaintiff’s injuries. There was much evidence to the effect that the weld' was imperfect and that the rod fell because of this defect. A witness for the-fabricator, testifying as an expert in the-field of metals, while admitting that the weld was imperfect, testified that in his-opinion the weld would not have broken-had the additional weight not been added. The architect’s duties included supervision. In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict we find substantial competent evidence to support the judgment against the architect. Bayshore Development Co. v. Bondfoey, 1918, 75 Fla. 455, 78 So. 507, L.R.A.1918D, 889.
The defendant, Mai Kai, Inc., had’ a non-delegable duty to keep its premises-reasonably safe for the invited ttse, and it *800is liable for such damages that may result by reason of a breach of that duty. Modlin v. Washington Avenue Food Center, Fla. App.1965, 178 So.2d 596.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS, J., concur.
BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the part of the opinion that holds the restaurant owner liable.
I dissent to that part of the opinion that holds the architect liable under the circumstances of this case since the faulty welding was that of the fabricator without which fault the injury would not have occurred; the adding of additional weight was not a fault but created a condition without which the latent fault of the fabricator would not have become active.
BARNS, Associate Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the part of the opinion that holds the restaurant owner liable.
I dissent to that part of the opinion that holds the architect liable under the circumstances of this case since the faulty welding was that of the fabricator without which fault the injury would not have occurred; the adding of additional weight was not a fault but created a condition without which the latent fault of the fabricator would not have become active.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973)…t suit against both the owner and an architect who had supervised the installation of an overhead fan after preparing appropriate plans and specifications. The fan struck the patron when a weld severed. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, 186 So. 2d 798, affirmed a judgment in favor of the patron; on certiorari review, we implicitly recognized the viability of the cause of action against the supervisory architect, quashing and reversing only because he could not have known that the weld was imperfe…
-
MAI KAI, Inc. v. Mary Colucci and her husband, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1967)…C. J., and THOMAS and THORNAL, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs specially with opinion. ERVIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. WHITE, Jos. S., Circuit Judge (Retired), concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. . 186 So. 2d 798. . Fla.1958, 108 So. 2d 462. . Ibid, p. 466. .Cited in the opinion of the appellate court is Modlin v. Washington Avenue Food Center, Fla.App., 4th Dist. 1965, 178 So. 2d 596, which has been reviewed upon petition for certiorari in this Court. Se…1 / 2
-
Gustav Rist v. Northside Ctr., Inc., 210 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…d facts in the record failed to establish any liability on the part of the defendant as a matter of law. In the recent case of Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, Fla.1967, 205 So. 2d 291, the Supreme Court quashed an opinion of the District Court of Appeal, 186 So. 2d 798 affirming a judgment for the plaintiff entered after a trial by the jury. The Supreme Court held that on the evidence relative to material issues, the judgment could not be sustained. The legal principle recurring in these three cases is that an ow…
Authorities Cited
- Bayshore Dev. Co. v. Bondfoey, 75 Fla. 455 (Fla. 1918)
- Modlin v. Wash. Ave. Food Ctr., Inc., 178 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)