DULCE MAURY AND ALBERT MAURY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY STORES COMPANY, 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.
Mr. and Mrs. Maury appealed a summary judgment in favor of City Stores Company in a personal injury action arising from Mrs. Maury's fall in the store's bedding department. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the uncontroverted facts established that the store met its duty to maintain reasonably safe premises and was not negligent.
The court held that under the facts as described in Mrs. Maury's deposition, the store met the standard of reasonable safety and was therefore not negligent. Summary judgment was properly entered for the appellee because negligence was not a question for the jury given the undisputed facts.
“The only question, then, is whether the uncontroverted statements made by Mrs. Maury in her deposition establish without any genuine issue of material fact that her injury was not caused by any negligence of the appellee.”
Establishes the proper legal standard for summary judgment in negligence cases—whether undisputed facts preclude negligence liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Maury, a business invitee, was examining mattresses on display beds in the appellee's bedding department. As she walked down an aisle, she turned…
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 Personal Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. and Mrs. Maury appeal from a summary final judgment for the appellee in an action for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Maury in the appellee’s store.
The general rule is that the issue of negligence is to be determined by the jury rather than the judge. Strickland v. Bradford County Hospital Corp., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 765. The only question, then, is whether the uncontroverted statements made by Mrs. Maury in her deposition establish without any genuine issue of material fact that her injury was not caused by any negligence of the appellee. Viewed in the light most favorable to Mrs. Maury, her deposition establishes the following facts. On the day of the injury she was a business invitee in the bedding department of the ap-pellee’s store examining beds consisting of mattresses placed on metal frames. The beds were displayed in a long row adjacent to an aisle. As Mrs. Maury walked down the aisle examining the mattresses, she came to what she believed was an open space, and turned in. Her leg then struck a metal bed frame ten to twelve inches high on which there was no mattress. She fell and suffered fractures of her arm and other injuries. She walked into the frame because she did not see a mattress on it; it was the only bed frame without a mattress. The frame did not project into the aisle; rather, it was approximately one foot behind the line established by the rest of the bedding equipment. The color of the frame contrasted with the color of the floor. The area was well lighted.
The appellants rely upon Carter v. Parker, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 3, and Shell’s *777Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 884, for reversal. In Carter v. Parker the plaintiff wife tripped over the leg of the chair in a cocktail lounge. The plaintiffs alleged that the lounge was dimly lit, that the tables and chairs were crowded together, and that the chairs had extremely protruding legs. On these facts, the court reversed a summary final judgment for the defendant. We do not think that case is applicable because in the case at bar the area in which the injury occurred was well lighted, and the bed frame did not extend into an aisle or an area which would ordinarily be used as a passage by customers. Nor do we consider Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker applicable to the present case. The opinion in that case makes it clear that when the conflicting evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury found that the apple box over which she tripped had been placed in an aisle intended for the use of customers. This court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the jury and affirmed a judgment for the plaintiffs.
The appellee company owed Mrs. Maury the duty of maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36, 2 So.2d 302 (1941). But the law does not require the proprietor of a public place to maintain his premises in a condition such that no injury can be sustained by a customer. Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366 (1942); Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, Fla. 1952, 61 So.2d 477.
Under the circumstances of this case as described by Mrs. Maury in her deposition, it is clear that the appellee met the standard set by the Moulden case and was therefore not negligent towards Mrs. Maury.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)…Movant’s burden is even more onerous in negligence actions where summary judgment procedures historically have been employed with special care. Holl v. Talcott, supra; Stephens v. Moody, 225 So. 2d 586 (Fla.lst DCA 1969); Maury v. City Stores, Inc., 214 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Suhr v. Dade County, 198 So. 2d 837 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). The necessity for exercise of such caution is emphasized by virtue of this Court’s adoption of comparative negligence, Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 [*31] (Fla.1973), and i…
-
U. S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. & Phillip Hurlock, 362 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…burden is even more onerous in negligence actions where summary judgment procedures historically have been employed with special care. Holl v. Talcott, supra; Stephens v. Moody, 225 So. 2d [*417] 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Maury v. City Stores, Inc., 214 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Suhr v. Dade County, 198 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). The necessity for exercise of such caution is emphasized by virtue of this Court’s adoption of comparative negligence, Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973), and its r…
-
Partelow v. Edgar, 219 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…safety of those who come upon his property. Nor is he required to maintain the property in such a manner that an accident could not possibly happen. Night Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. Green, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 500; Maury v. City Stores Co., Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 776. Before examining the record in detail, it may prove of value to point out what evidence is not present in this case. The floor was not shown to have been maintained in other than a normal and proper manner, Ladenson v. Eder, Fla. 1967, 195 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matson v. TIP TOP Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1942)
- Abarca v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- In re Application of Marion E. Sibley to Resign from the Bar of the State of Fla., 151 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1942)
- Nettie Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 147 Fla. 36 (Fla. 1941)
- Carter v. Parker, 183 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Int'l HOD Carriers' v. Heftler Constr. Co., 103 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Nezzie A. Strickland and Cassius B. Strickland v. Bradford Cnty. Hosp. Corp., 196 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)