MOISES M. ROTBART, APPELLANT,
v.
JORDAN MARSH COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
A plaintiff injured during an armed robbery in a department store parking garage appeals the dismissal of his negligence complaint. The court holds that the complaint states a cause of action against the store for failing to maintain safe premises and provide adequate security, reversing the dismissal and allowing the case to proceed to trial.
The amended complaint states a cause of action. As a business invitee, the plaintiff was owed a duty by Jordan Marsh to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard against dangers that Jordan Marsh was cognizant of or could reasonably foresee, which includes criminal assault on patrons.
[1] A business owes a duty to its invitees to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to guard against dangers that the business is aware of or could reasonably…
[2] A complaint states a cause of action for negligence against a business when it alleges that the business failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, f…
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 intelligence“the defendant owes him the duty of keeping its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to guard against subjecting him to dangers of which Jordan Marsh is cognizant or which it reasonably might have foreseen”
Establishes the legal duty owed by a business to an invitee, which forms the basis for the negligence claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 1, 1971, plaintiff Rotbart drove into the second-floor parking garage of a Jordan Marsh Department Store. Upon parking, he discovered the eleva…
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 Duty Of Care To Invitees cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint with prejudice.
Appellant filed suit against the defendant Jordan Marsh Company and its insur- anee company seeking damages in excess of $500,000.
His complaint alleged that on the afternoon of May 1, 1971, appellant drove his car into the second floor parking garage at the 163rd Street Jordan Marsh Department Store, intending to patronize the store.
After parking his vehicle, appellant walked to an elevator and discovered it was not operating. The complaint alleged that no sign was posted indicating the elevator wasn’t working or that a staircase was available as an alternative.
Further, the complaint stated that while searching for an exit, the appellant was accosted by two armed robbers, who robbed him, beat him, and left him unconscious and severely injured.
The appellant charged Jordan Marsh with negligence in failing to maintain the elevator in working order or failing to have an exit marked as required by law, or alternatively in failing to provide adequate security protection to patrons to prevent such criminal assaults which appellant contends are reasonably foreseeable.
As support for this latter contention, appellant stated in his amended complaint that Jordan Marsh maintains a security staff trained to prevent similar thefts against the store, but not instructed to prevent such activities directed against the store’s patrons.
Our sole concern in this case is whether or not as a matter of law the appellant’s complaint states a cause of action. We think it does.
Both parties concede that appellant occupies the legal position of a business invitee. Therefore, the defendant owes him the duty of keeping its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to guard against subjecting him to dangers of which Jordan Marsh is cognizant or which it reasonably might have foreseen. McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 185; Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 157.
We believe that the facts and circumstances of this case as set forth in the amended complaint create a triable issue. See, Sparks v. Ober, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 81.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, we conclude that the order appealed must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ing to protect another from the results of reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. Werndli v. Greyhound Corp., 365 So. 2d 177 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Rosier v. Gainesville Inns Associates, 347 So. 2d 1100 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Co., 305 So. 2d 255 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Cooper v. IBI Security Service of Florida, Inc., 281 So. 2d 524 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 95 (Fla.1973); Homan v. Dade County, 248 So. 2d 235 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Booth, 148 So. 2d 536…
-
Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…business invitee, is the duty to guard against subjecting such invitee to dangers which the defendants might have reasonably foreseen. Sabatelli v. Omni International Hotels, Inc., 379 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Company, 305 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Included among those dangers is a criminal assault by a third party. Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pitts v. Metropolitan Dade Coun…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Johns Cnty. v. Murphy, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1957)
- Sparks v. Ober, 192 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Graham v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc., 240 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)