JOHN O. CAMP, AS FATHER OF RANDALL GLEN CAMP, DECEASED, AND JOHN O. CAMP, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF RANDALL GLEN CAMP, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
GULF COUNTIES GAS COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment, as a jury could find the landowner liable based on the circumstances.
[1] Landowners owe a single duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances, obscuring the traditional distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers.
[2] The duty of care owed by a landowner is to the specific person lawfully on the premises, with reasonable care determined by all circumstances of the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA young boy died in an explosion in the landowner's bomb shelter, which had a gas line to appliances. The valve to a gas lamp was found open part way …
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 Trespasser cases and more on FLexlaw
Any discussion of the categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser would he *731 quite inadequate without the observation that these distinctions have been more and more obscured during the last centu-, ry as courts have moved toward imposing on owners and occupiers a single duty of reasonable care in all the circumstances, 1
We extrapolate, from a recent decision of our Supreme Court,2 a trend toward the sound view that there is not, as Lord Dunedin once suggested, “an absolutely rigid line” separating invitees, licensees and trespassers.3 It now seems clear that our court has come to the view that “The duty is not to invitees as a class, nor to licensees as a class, hut to the very person himself who is lawfully there. What is reasonable care in regard to him depends on all the circumstances of the case.” 4
There are older Florida authorities, overruled since the trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant in this case, which would have led him to believe that for want of an “economic benefit” the plaintiff could not have qualified as anything but a “mere” licensee, scarcely more deserving of the landowner’s attention than a trespasser.5
The facts of this case illustrate well why rigid pigeonholes do not accurately describe the duty of care owed by Wood, the landowner, to Randall Camp, the plaintiff’s deceased son. A decade ago, when security from atomic attack was thought to lie underground, Wood built a bomb shelter in his front yard. He installed a gas line into it, extending to two appliances, one for light, the other for cooking. Young Camp died five days after an explosion in the shelter, where he had visited Frank Wood, Jr. often. On the day of the accident, young Wood was ill, and in the main house. The boys had done some painting in the shelter, and were working on an outboard motor in the Wood’s garage. It is not clear why Randall Camp went to the shelter. After the explosion, the valve to the gas lamp was open part way. There are many more facts than need be stated in the opinion, but suffice it to say that at least one — we do not say only one — suggests a basis on which a jury might conceivably find both Wood and the gas company liable. There was no shut-off valve between the appliance and the point at which the gas line entered the shelter. There is an engineer’s testimony adducible at trial to the effect that such a valve is necessary in the interest of safety. The trial judge states in his order that no regulation of the industry association requires such a fail-safe device, but this is, first of all, a matter of interpretation of a general regulation requiring a shut-off valve at every point “where safety, convenience of operation and maintenance demands,” and, secondly, not definitive of due care anyhow, although it is evidence to be considered.
In short, the trial judge prematurely terminated these proceedings. Whether a jury ultimately finds either or both defendants liable depends upon their common sense understanding of the numberless permutations of the relationship between duty and expectation. They are fit judges of the question whether the host acted reason*732ably, in all the circumstances, toward Randall Camp.6
The argument that a judgment for plaintiff would necessarily involve a pyramiding of inferences is without merit for reasons explained in C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Mason, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 471.
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973)…uest” is before us in this asserted conflict with Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972). Lunney involved only a “public invitee” so that there is conflict of course with that part of the Second District holding sought to be reviewed, reported at 265 So. 2d 730 (1973), which attributes to Lunney an erroneous principle beyond its holding.1 The extent of our holding in Lunney was to remove the former “economic benefit” or “mutual benefit” requirement of McNulty v. Hurley, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1957), and prior…
-
NOA v. United GAS Pipeline Co., 305 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1974)…alia. [*185] Additional conflict is urged with the following cases: Zunck v. Gulf Oil Corp. (Fla.App.1969), 224 So. 2d 386 (does a gas company supplying gas to a private company have a duty to odorize?); Camp v. Gulf Counties Gas Co. (Fla.App.1972), 265 So. 2d 730, cert. den. Fla., 284 So. 2d 691 (expert testimony on reasonable care sufficed to create a jury question), and Zeller v. Peoples Gas System, Inc. (Fla.App.1972), 258 So. 2d 835 (whether a gas company has odorized gas as required is a question of fac…
-
Jonathan Boyce (F. Gordon Boyce v. PI Kappa Alpha Holding Corp., 476 F.2d 447 (5th Cir. 1973)…ouse. Although the question of plaintiff’s “status” was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence supported the ’ finding that he was an “invitee”, this issue may now be academic under Florida law, by virtue of Camp v. Gulf Counties Gas Co., 265 So. 2d 730 (Fla.D.C.A. 2, 1972). This case appears to abolish in Florida the distinctions which previously have been drawn regarding the duties owed to invitees, licensees, and trespassers, and to substitute therefor a single duty of reasonable care under the…
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
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (U.S. 1959)
- ST. Johns Cnty. v. Murphy, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1957)
- Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)
- Green Springs, Inc. v. Green, 239 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1970)
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 245 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1957)
- C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Mason, 247 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)