ESPERANZA PADILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
TULSO ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JOHN HOWARD, 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.
Esperanza Padilla appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of her landlord, Tulso Enterprises, Inc. and John Howard, in a negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall injury in an apartment building. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine material issues of fact regarding the landlord's knowledge of the dangerous condition.
The trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the record contained a total absence of evidence that the defendants created the dangerous condition, had knowledge of it and failed to remedy it, or that the condition existed long enough that they should have had constructive notice of it. No genuine material issues of fact existed.
[1] A landlord may be held liable for a tenant's injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on the premises only if the landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of th…
[2] Summary judgment is appropriate when there is a total absence of evidence establishing that the defendant created a dangerous condition, had actual knowledge of it, or ha…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“In order for the plaintiff to recover, it is necessary that she prove that the defendant landlords had actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the existence of the dangerous condition for a time sufficient for the same to be remedied.”
Establishes the legal standard for landlord negligence liability in slip-and-fall cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePadilla was a paying lessee in an apartment building owned and operated by Tulso Enterprises and John Howard. On December 1, 1972, while descending th…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant takes this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s order granting defendant-appellees’ motion for summary judgment in this negligence action.
Plaintiff-appellant, Esperanza Padilla, is a paying lessee in an apartment building owned and operated by the defendants-ap-pellees, Tulso Enterprises, Inc. and John Howard. On December 1, 1972 the plaintiff, while descending the stairs in the building, stepped on a wet or grease spot causing her to slip and fall. As a result thereof, she sustained personal injuries. She filed a complaint for damages against the defendants. After discovery commenced, defendants-appellees moved for summary judgment. A hearing was held thereon at which counsel stipulated that for purposes of the hearing all depositions to be adduced at trial had been taken and were presented. Thereafter, the trial judge entered the herein appealed order granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
Appellant urges, as one of his two points on appeal, that the trial judge erred in granting the motion for summary judgment in that genuine material issues of fact exist. We cannot agree.
In order for the plaintiff to recover, it is necessary that she prove that the defendant landlords had actual or constructive knowledge or notice of the existence of the dangerous condition for a time sufficient for the same to be remedied. See: Marlo Investments, Inc. v. Verne, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 58 and cases cited therein. An examination of the record on appeal reflects a total absence of evidence to the effect that the defendants in the case sub judice created or had knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it, or that the condition existed a sufficient period of time that they should have had constructive notice of the existence of the defective condition. Thus, we conclude that the trial judge was correct as a matter of law in entering summary final judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees.
We also considered appellant’s other point on appeal and found it to be lacking in merit.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kessler v. Gumenick, 358 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…sonable diligence, remedied the situation. In that no proof was offered with respect to the knowledge of appellees, it is our opinion that, sub judice, appellant failed to present a prima facie case of negligence. Padilla v. Tulso Enterprises, Inc., 307 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Haley v. Harvey Building Inc., 168 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Accordingly, a summary final judgment would have been proper. For the reason stated at the' outset, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.…
-
Calvache v. Jackson Mem'l Hosp., 588 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…quid in the waxed hallway upon which the plaintiff slipped and fell. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a summary judgment on this issue. See Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Padilla v. Tulso Enter., 307 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Partelow v. Edgar, 219 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). But cf. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Wylie, 46 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1950) (where plaintiff, unlike here, presented extensive evidence regarding known unsafe applica…
-
Gervertz v. Miami Foods Ltd., 520 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Food Fair Stores, Inc, v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1961); Bates v. Winn-Dixie Supermarkets, Inc., 182 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1966); see Padilla v. Tulso Enterprises, Inc., 307 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).…
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
- Marlo Invs., Inc. v. Verne, 227 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)