FREDERICH'S MARKET, INC.
v.
KNOX
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.
In this negligence case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff who fell over a box used to display apples in the defendant's supermarket. The court held that a merchant is not liable for injuries caused by obviously visible obstacles, as customers have a reciprocal duty to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.
The court held that the appellant was not liable because the box was so obvious that a person using normal senses should have seen and avoided it. A customer has a reciprocal duty to use reasonable care for their own safety, and merchants are not insurers of customer safety.
“An object of the dimensions we have described supporting a sack of merchandise was so obvious that anyone possessed of normal senses, and using them, could have, and should have, seen the obstacle and avoided injury by not stumbling over it.”
Establishes the court's holding that the obstacle was sufficiently obvious to relieve the merchant of liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee fell while shopping at appellant's supermarket when she tripped over a box eight inches high and twenty inches long that protruded into a…
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 Obvious Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellee was successful in an action to recover damages for injuries suffered when she fell while shopping in appellant’s super market. She alleged that she tripped over a box eight inches high and twenty inches long which protruded into an aisle ten or twelve inches. She charged her misfortune to appellant’s negligence “in causing * * * or allowing said box to be placed” at the particular location in the store. From the testimony the object caus' ing the mishap would be more accurately described as a box fastened lengthwise to a permanent bin or rack. The box was being used for the display of a bag of apples.
On the pivotal point presented in the briefs we must agree with appellant. An object of the dimensions we have described supporting a sack of merchandise was so obvious that anyone possessed of normal senses, and using them, could have, and should have, seen the obstacle and avoided injury by not stumbling over it.
While the storekeeper is obligated to keep his place of business in a reasonably safe condition, the customer is bound to use reasonable care for his own safety. The merchant cannot be expected to escort his customers around furnishings designed to exhibit his wares. The duties of the two parties in the relationship are reciprocal. See Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366.
To hold a storekeeper responsible to a customer who falls over an object of the proportions we have detailed, set adjacent to a counter and topped by a sizeable package so arranged as purposely to attract the attention of customers to its presence, would require our retreat from the position often assumed that merchants are not insurers.
We can only conclude, giving appellee the benefit of all implications arising from the evidence, that the stumbling block was so obvious that the appellant should not be held responsible for the injuries appellee suffered through failure to fend for herself.
Reversed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Chambers v. Southern Wholesale, 92 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1956)…ercise a reasonable degree of care for his own safety and to see that which would be obvious upon the ordinary use of his senses, Hoag v. Moeller, Fla., 82 So. 2d 138; Brant v. Van Zandt, Fla., 77 So. 2d 858; Frederich’s Market, Inc., v. Knox, Fla., 66 So. 2d 251; Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., Fla., 63 So. 2d 769; Earley v. Morrison, Fla., 61 So. 2d 477; Clyde Bar, Inc., v. McClamma, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So. 2d 916; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366. In the present case the plaintiff’s tes…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 220 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in failing to see the box. Compare McHargue v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 283. The case relied on by the defendant, Frederich’s Market, Inc. v. Knox, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 251, is sufficiently distinguishable on its facts that it is not controlling. In our opinion the trial court committed no error in denying the motion for directed verdict and the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment appealed…
-
6345 Collins Ave., Inc. v. Murray A. Fein, 95 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1957)…nt that the hotel was negligent, it is obvious that plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the proximate cause of his injury and he cannot recover. Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 1942, 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366; Fredericks Market v. Knox, Fla. 1953, 66 So. 2d 251 and Dramstadt v. City of West Palm Beach, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 484. Where the evidence on the question is in conflict, the absence or presence of contributory negligence is a question to be decided by the jury. But where the undisputed evidence show…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matson v. TIP TOP Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1942)
- In re Application of Marion E. Sibley to Resign from the Bar of the State of Fla., 151 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1942)