ELIZABETH MCDANIEL, AS THE MOTHER OF MARY MCDANIEL, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
AVELINO A. MENDEZ, 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.
This case involves a wrongful death claim where a child died after falling from a couch in a carport. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, finding the child was a licensee and the couch did not constitute an attractive nuisance or a dangerous condition.
No, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. The deceased child was a licensee, and the couch did not present an inherently dangerous condition or constitute an attractive nuisance.
“The deceased was a licensee on the defendant's premises.”
Establishes the legal status of the deceased child on the appellee's property.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant's deceased daughter was playing with the appellee's daughter on a couch in the appellee's carport. The child fell from the couch, hit he…
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 Inherently Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a final order of the trial court, dismissing with prejudice her complaint seeking damages in a tort action.
The deceased daughter of the appellant was playing with the appellee’s daughter on a couch, located on the concrete [or terrazzo] floor of the carport of appellee’s residence. While engaged in such play, the deceased fell from the couch striking her head on the hard surface of the floor. As a result of the injuries, the child died. The appellant brought the instant action seeking damages, alleging negligence on the part of the appellee and/or the creation of an attractive nuisance by the appellee. The appellee moved to dismiss the complaint and the court entered the order appealed, dismissing the complaint with prejudice after opportunity for amendment was declined. We affirm.
The deceased was a licensee on the defendant’s premises. See: Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; Lowery v. Rosenberg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 321. The couch was not inherently dangerous nor a trap, nor was it maintained in such manner so as to create a dangerous condition, and did not constitute an attractive nuisance. See: Miller v. Guernsey Construction Company, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 55; Edwards v. Maule Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 5; 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence, § 63.
Therefore, the final order here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Goldberg v. Straus, 45 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1950)
- Lowery v. Rosenberg, 147 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Edwards v. Maule Indus., Inc., 147 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Glisson v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co., 147 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- S. Atl. GAS Co. & Globe Indem. Co. v. Hill, 112 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)