ROBERT GISSENDANNER, SAMUEL CHOICE AND JOHN FOREST SMALLEY, APPELLANTS,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Pittman v. Volusia Cnty., 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …ng the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to give timely notice of latent or concealed perils which are known or should be known to the owner, but which are not known to the plaintiff.’ (emphasis supplied in original.) Waterman v. Graham, 228 So. 2d 925 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); see also Standard Jury Instruction 3.5(f). We think this statement of the rule suggests that in some circumstances the duty may extend beyond mere warning. 3. In discussing this issue, Prosser writes: ‘Likewise, in the usual cas…
• Zambito v. Southland Rec. Enters., Inc., 383 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
  …: 1) to use ordinary care in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and 2) to give timely notice of latent or concealed perils which are known or should be known to the owner, but which are not known to the invitee. Waterman v. Graham, 228 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Although Florida courts have traditionally adhered to the rule that a business invitee’s equal or superior knowledge of a hazard discharges the landowner’s duty to warn, recent decisions have questioned the viability of the pate…
• Stewart v. Boho, Inc., 493 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
  …pect to the physical condition of the premises, the owner of premises open to the public owes his invitee a duty to warn of latent or concealed dangers which are known or should be known to the owner and not known to the invitee. Waterman v. Graham, 228 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), cert. den. 237 So. 2d 538 (1970). Where the danger is obvious and apparent or the invitee otherwise has knowledge of the danger which is equal to or superior to the owner’s knowledge, the owner has no duty to warn of it. Pittman…

Authorities Cited

• Callendar v. State, 181 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1966)