THE GRAND UNION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH SUTTER AND PAUL SUTTER, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Open And Obvious Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. The court properly submitted to the jury the question of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miller, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 680.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent as I am of the opinion that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages was the negligence of the plaintiff, Elizabeth Sutter.
Plaintiff went shopping at defendant’s grocery store. She selected a grocery cart common to super market stores. It was a wire cart which had a baby seat which contains two holes so designed that a child sitting in the seat may place his legs through them. It is undisputed that plaintiff, Elizabeth Sutter, had been using such shopping carts for a period of three years and that she personally selected the cart on the occasion in question. She removed three quart bottles of beer from the shelf and placed two of them in the bottom of the cart which was designed to carry groceries. She placed one bottle in the child’s seat. Quite naturally and predictably it promptly fell through the open leg hole and injured the user. It is my view that the construction of the cart was open and obvious and that this plaintiff’s use of such carts almost daily for the previous three years would negate any necessity for notice or warning on the part of the defendant and that, therefore, defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff. The law requires that a plaintiff see that which should be obvious to her upon the ordinary use of her senses. Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 53; Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 769.
I would reverse upon the principles and authority of Grall v. Risden, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 610; May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 784; Stueber v. Maintenance Inc., Fla.App.1967, 205 So.2d 305; Baione v. City of Tampa, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 743; and Isenberg v. Ortona Recreational Center Inc., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 132.
WALDEN, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent as I am of the opinion that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages was the negligence of the plaintiff, Elizabeth Sutter. Plaintiff went shopping at defendant’s grocery store. She selected a grocery cart common to super market stores. It was a wire cart which had a baby seat which contains two holes so designed that a child sitting in the seat may place his legs through them. It is undisputed that plaintiff, Elizabeth Sutter, had been using such shopping carts for a period of three years and that she personally selected the cart on the occasion in question. She removed three quart bottles of beer from the shelf and placed two of them in the bottom of the cart which was designed to carry groceries. She placed one bottle in the child’s seat. Quite naturally and predictably it promptly fell through the open leg hole and injured the user. It is my view that the construction of the cart was open and obvious and that this plaintiff’s use of such carts almost daily for the previous three years would negate any necessity for notice or warning on the part of the defendant and that, therefore, defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff. The law requires that a plaintiff see that which should be obvious to her upon the ordinary use of her senses. Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 53; Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 769.
I would reverse upon the principles and authority of Grall v. Risden, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 610; May v. Allied Chlorine & Chemical Products, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 784; Stueber v. Maintenance Inc., Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 305; Baione v. City of Tampa, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 743; and Isenberg v. Ortona Recreational Center Inc., Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 132.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandsbury LEE v. State, 230 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
-
Butler v. State, 873 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED as moot. See Rosales v. Moore, 775 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); [*538] Edwards v. State, 765 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Lee v. State, 230 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). ERVIN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.…
-
Moore v. Moore, 764 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…to dismiss this certiorari action as moot. Deciding the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to the 700 days’ provisional credits would serve no useful purpose now. See, e.g., Haynes v. State, 621 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lee v. State, 230 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). This appeal is DISMISSED as moot. MINER, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.…
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
- Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1952)
- Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc., 160 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Grall v. Risden, 167 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 220 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Gertrude Jacobs and Charles Jacobs v. Claughton, 97 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Stueber v. Maint., Inc., 205 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- MAY v. Allied Chlorine & Chem. Prods., Inc., 168 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Baione v. The City OF Tampa & Charles M. Drake, 199 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)