SHIRLEY FLETCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
PETMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Plaintiff Fletcher appeals the grant of summary judgment in her negligence action against the Yorkshire Inn for injuries sustained in a fall near the restaurant's entrance. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the design and safety of the steps and lighting, precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the design and adequacy of the steps, the adequacy of lighting, and proximate cause. The jury was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence even though plaintiff could not recall the precise cause of the fall.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue must be resolved against the moving party.
[2] A plaintiff's inability to recall the precise cause of their fall does not preclude recovery if the jury can reasonably infer the proximate cause from the evidence presen…
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“Upon reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the classic inquiry is whether or not there remains genuine issues of material fact and if issues of fact exist and the slightest doubt remains, a summary judgment cannot be granted and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing summary judgment motions in Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 31, 1973, at 10:30 p.m., Shirley Fletcher dined at the Yorkshire Inn and sat on a bench located approximately 8.5 inches above the driveway w…
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 Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal in a negligence action from an order, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, Shirley Fletcher, filed a complaint for damages against defendant Pet-man Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a the Yorkshire Inn, and its liability insurer, Safeco Insurance Company of America, for injuries suffered as a result of a fall atT0:30 p. m. on March 31, 1973. Plaintiff alleged that on the evening in question, she and a male companion along with her sister and brother-in-law had dined at the Yorkshire Inn. Upon exiting, plaintiff and her sister sat on a bench in front of the inn while waiting for their car to be delivered. The bench was located approximately 8}4 inches above the driveway elevation and it was two steps down to the driveway pavement. When their car arrived, plaintiff got up from the bench, took a few steps, and, as testified in her deposition, the next thing she knew she had fallen. Plaintiff further testified she was unaware the steps existed because she entered the restaurant by walking up a ramp.
Plaintiff basically alleges (1) the steps were not of uniform design and construction, (2) the steps were not apparent, (3) there was inadequate lighting in the area, and (4) placement of the bench was improper. Upon reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the classic inquiry is whether or not there remains genuine issues of material fact and if issues of fact exist and the slightest doubt remains, a summary judgment cannot be granted and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Manufacturing Co., Fla.App.1972, 261 So. 2d 191.
In the cause before us, we find there exists genuine issues as to material facts, i. e. design of the steps, adequacy of the lighting, etc. See Coburn v. Delmonico Hotel Corp., Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 30; Winsemann v. Travelodge Corporation, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 315; Robinson v. Kiwanis Club of Delray Beach, Fla.App.1972, 265 So. 2d 387.
In addition, we note that although plaintiff was unable to recall precisely what caused her fall, this fact would not entitle defendants to summary judgment in that the record reveals plaintiff fell to the driveway directly below the steps and the jury would be entitled to consider, without speculating, and draw all reasonable inferences from the pertinent evidence as to the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. See Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, Fla.App.1959, 117 So. 2d 531.
The order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
McCABE v. Walt Disney World Co., 350 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…setting in the Haunted Mansion attraction and the adequacy of the lighting have been placed into issue by the allegation of the existence of a hazardous condition which also precludes entry of summary judgment. Fletcher v. Petman Enterprises, Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Further, the question of whether the alleged hazardous condition was so concealed or hidden as reasonably to require a warning or other protective measure, and whether that duty to warn has been fulfilled are proper questions for…
-
Spolski Gen. Contractor, Inc. v. Jett-Aire Corp. Aviation Mgmt. OF Cent. Fla., Inc., 637 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…0] material fact and the recipient must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). The test for reversal of a summary judgment is whether issues of fact exist and the slightest doubt remains. Fletcher v. Petman Enter., Inc., 324 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Judgment on the pleadings and final summary judgment were properly granted for Moore because there was no sale from Moore to Spolski, no privity between Spolski and Moore, no contract between Spolski and Moore, no reliance b…
-
Bianchi v. Garber, 528 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…evidence of the circumstances of her fall from which a jury could find that the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause and that evidence precluded a summary judgment grounded on the Adkins decision. See Fletcher v. Petman Enterprises, Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), where a restaurant patron sued for damages resulting from a fall outside the restaurant. Although the patron could not explain how she came to fall, she alleged, among other things, inadequate lighting in the area where she fell.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, 117 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Fletcher Co. v. Melroe Mfg. Co., 261 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Winsemann v. The Travelodge Corp., 205 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Rosenstein v. Raticoff, 265 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Robinson v. Kiwanis Club OF Delray Beach, 265 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Doris K. Coburn and her husband v. Delmonico Hotel Corp., 203 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)