STANLEY GELMAN AND GERALDINE GELMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Gelmans sued Miami Elevator Company for negligence in elevator maintenance after suffering injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the elevator company based on the theory that a third party cannot sue under a maintenance contract to which they are not a party, but the appellate court reversed, holding that negligence actions against contractors responsible for maintenance are maintainable by injured members of the public.
The court held that injured members of the public can maintain negligence actions against a party responsible by contract for maintenance of an elevator, and that the trial court's finding that a contract between a proprietor and service contractor is not of benefit to a business invitee is not a sufficient basis for summary judgment.
[1] A party injured by negligent maintenance of an elevator may maintain a cause of action against the party contractually responsible for its maintenance.
[2] A summary judgment may only be entered when the movant demonstrates that the non-moving party cannot establish a prima facie case.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such actions have been held to be maintainable by an injured member of the public against a party responsible by contract for the maintenance.”
Establishes the key legal principle that negligence actions can be brought by non-parties to a maintenance contract against contractors responsible for maintenance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gelmans were injured while alighting from an elevator at a department store. Miami Elevator Company had a written contract with the department sto…
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 Third Party Beneficiary cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants as plaintiffs, sued the operators of a department store and the ap-pellee, Miami Elevator Company, as a result of injuries which occurred upon alighting from an elevator. This appeal is from a summary final judgment for the appellee, Miami Elevator Company. The allegation of negligence as to the Elevator Company is that “the defendant Miami Elevator Company was negligent and careless of [sic] the aforesaid maintenance resulting in serious and permanent injury to the plaintiff.” The pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file show that there was a written contract between appellee and the operators of the department store whereby the appellee undertook to maintain the mechanical condition of the elevator.
The trial court entered the summary judgment upon a finding as follows:
“The Court finds that a contract between a proprietor and a service contractor is not of benefit to a business invitee and the latter is not a party to such contract.”
Without discussing whether or not the finding of the trial court is correct as an abstract statement of law, we hold that it is not a sufficient basis for summary judgment in this case. The appellant as plaintiff has attempted to state a cause of action for negligence in the maintenance of the elevator. Such actions have been held to be maintainable by an injured member of the public against a party responsible by contract for the maintenance. Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., Fla.App. 1969, 227 So.2d 519; see 26 Am.Jur.2d Elevators and Escalators § 17. Summary judgment for the defendant may be entered only upon a showing that the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case. The burden to make this showing is upon the movant. Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 606.
The summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Md. Maint. Serv., Inc. v. Vittorio Palmieri and Bertha Palmieri, 559 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…etan Life, 599 F. 2d 1359, 1371 (5th Cir.1979). .Indeed, the plaintiff conceded that, although he had attended Calder many times, he had never seen anyone cleaning in the outdoor seating area on a routine basis. . Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, 242 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), relied on by the majority, is inapposite. There the plaintiff’s theory was that the elevator company had breached its contractual obligation. Here there is no evidence to support the existence of a breach.…1 / 2
-
Sachse v. Tampa Music Co., Inc., 262 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…pretrial discovery methods as depositions, request for admissions and interrogatories can be used by the plaintiff to show that there was a maintenance contract between the defendant and another party. Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, Fla.App.1970, 242 So. 2d 156. We conclude that the complaint stated a cause of action under Florida’s third party beneficiary rules, Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 519; Hill v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, U.S.C.A., 5th Cir…
-
Black v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 581 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…d DCA 1989); Davis v. Otis Elevator Co., 515 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988); Reliance Electric Co., Haughton Elevator Division v. Humphrey, 427 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gelman v. Miami Elevator Company, 242 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Gel-man seems to be the genesis of this practice in Florida and it relies on a non-elevator case (Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., 227 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)) which was based on a third party beneficiary theory.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club, 171 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Gallichio v. Corporate Grp. Serv., Inc., 227 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)