GAVINO LOTTA, APPELLANT,
v.
BENJAMIN KAWALLER, 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 an appeal by a window washer injured when a chair he used to reach high windows collapsed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the employer, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the employer's liability.
Yes, the defendant was entitled to a summary final judgment because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“This is an appeal by plaintiff from a summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant.”
Identifies the procedural posture and the decision being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a window washer, was hired by the defendant and promised suitable equipment. To reach certain windows, the plaintiff chose to stand on …
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon the alleged failure of this defendant to provide the plaintiff with suitable equipment with which to perform window washing services for the defendant in and about the premises of the defendant. The facts, as shown by the record, are that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to wash the windows of the defendant’s premises. The defendant agreed to furnish all the material and equipment needed for the job. In order to wash certain windows that could not be reached by the use of the ladder, plaintiff elected to stand on a chair which he found on the premises. The plaintiff examined the chair and concluded that it was safe for him to stand on. However, while he was standing on the chair performing his work, it collapsed and he sustained injuries.
The question on appeal is whether or not the defendant was entitled to a summary final judgment. We think that the trial judge correctly determined that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the defendant was entitled to a summary final judgment as a matter of law. Moody v. Hanlon, 131 Fla. 129, 179 So. 164. See also Colton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 361.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moody v. Hanlon, 131 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1938)
- Colton v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 136 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)