PETTIGREW ET AL.
v.
NITE-CAP, INC.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for a restaurant owner after a patron was injured walking into a glass door. The court found the patron's own failure to exercise reasonable care was the sole proximate cause of her injury.
No, the restaurant owner was not negligent. The patron's failure to see the door, which was visible with reasonable care, was the sole proximate cause of her injury.
“It is clear to us that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was her failure to see that which, by the exercise of reasonable care, she should have seen.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that the plaintiff's own actions were the cause of her injury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennie R. Pettigrew was injured when she walked into a glass door at the entrance of Nite-Cap, Inc.'s restaurant at night. She claimed the lighting an…
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 Reasonable Care cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
About eleven o’clock in the evening appellant Jennie R. Pettigrew was injured when she walked into a large plate glass door at the entrance of appellee’s restaurant. She alleged the lighting inside the premises and the clear colorless glass door, void of markings or handles or other visible objects thereon, rendered the door invisible to such an extent that she did not see it and that the maintenance of such door in the condition described constituted negligence, and that such negligence was the cause of appellant’s injury.
Appellant’s testimony showed that the door was of clear glass but that there was a wide metal strip on the top and bottom of the door and a lucite handle located in the usual place on the door with black knobs at the top and bottom to hold it in place.
At the close of appellant’s case the lower court directed a verdict for the appellee, final judgment was entered and this appeal followed. The handle, knobs and metal strip on the door were plainly visible and the door was located at the place a door would naturally he expected. It is clear to us that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was her failure to see that which, by the exercise of reasonable care, she should have seen. See Rosenberg v. Hartman, 313 Mass. 54, 46 N.E. 2d 406.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.