FLEDA V. WESTERBEKE
v.
W. N. REYNOLDS
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 lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer, holding that a landlord has no common-law duty to light an exterior stairway for an invitee. The case clarifies the scope of landlord liability for injuries sustained on common areas.
No, a landlord does not have a common-law duty to light an exterior stairway for an invitee. Therefore, the landlord cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by the invitee due to the unlit condition of the stairs.
“The common-law liability of a landlord for safe condition of approaches to, and stairs and hallways in premises used in common by different tenants does not ordinarily require him to keep the ordinary halls and stairways lighted.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning regarding the landlord's duty concerning lighting common stairways.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a saleswoman, visited a housekeeper in her second-floor apartment, accessible only by an outside stairway. After her business visit, 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Landlord Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant here was plaintiff in the court below and in her amended declaration alleged,
“(a) On, to-wit, April 3, A. D. 1940, the plaintiff sus- ■ tained physical injuries by and through the negligence of the defendant, as follows:
“On said date, while it was still daylight, plaintiff, at the invitation of defendant’s housekeeper, and by permission of defendant, W. N. Reynolds, visited the said housekeeper in her apartment on the second floor of the defendant’s garage, located on defendant’s home place in Orlando, Florida. Plaintiff reached said apartment by climbing an outside stairway which was the only means of access to said apartment. Plaintiff’s mission was pursuant to a phone call asking her to come to exhibit samples of clothing to said housekeeper in order to induce her to place an order for purchase of clothing with planitiff who was then a sales*4woman for two clothing concerns locáted outside the State of Florida, namely, Bucklet Brothers, New York City, and Maisonette, Anderson, Indiana. After concluding said business visit the plaintiff then and there descended said outside stairway to reach the ground. At the time plaintiff descended said stairs at the conclusion of her said visit, said stairs were in complete darkness and plaintiff had to feel her way down said stairs. The final step from said stairs was on to a cement bottom platform, which was about three steps wide and then dropped to the cement driveway, dropping a distance of about the same height as the rises of the other stairs in said stairway. Plaintiff had not noticed this when' climbing said stairs and had not been warned of this condition. Defendant had wholly failed to illuminate said stairs and plaintiff did not then and there know that there was then and there any light installation for illuminating said stairs which were then and there in total darkness. In descending said stairs plaintiff stepped off the last step downwards on to the cement bottom platform and walked across said, platform assuming same to be at ground level and at the end of said platform stepped into space off onto the cement driveway, thereby fracturing the fibula of her left leg in two places and the tibia in one place, and sustained and suffered great pain, shock, bruises, contusions and other physical injuries, of a temporary and permanent nature to her said left leg.”
Demurrer to this declaration was sustained; plaintiff suffered judgment and appealed.
It will be observed that the declaration does not allege any specific duty toward plaintiff which defendant was required to perform and failed to perform. The declaration entirely fails to allege wherein actionable negligence of defendant resulted in injury to plaintiff.
The original declaration did aver:
“(b) And it was then and there the duty of the defendant to protect his invitee by properly lighting the aforesaid stairway and the platform at the bottom thereof so that the plaintiff could see her footing.
“(c) But the said defendant then and there wholly failed *5to light the said stairway and platform and left the same in total darkness, by reason whereof. ...”
But, on demurrer being sustained to that declaration, the plaintiff filed the amended declaration and, evidently realizing the fallacy of the above quoted allegation, did not re-aver same in the amended declaration.
This case is to be clearly differentiated from Dempsey-Vanderbilt Hotel Co. v. Huisman, 153 Fla. 800, 15 So. (2nd) 903, and like cases where a defect in construction or then existing physical condition of the involved steps or stairway caused the injury.
It appears to us that the questons involved in this case were determined adversely to the contention of appellant in Norman v. Shulman, et al., 150 Fla. 142, 7 So. (2nd) 98, wherein we held:
“A landlord was under no duty to tenant’s visitor to light entrance of building and hence was not liable under the common law for injury received by tenant’s visitor when she fell in leaving unlighted entrance after misjudging width of a step.”
“The common-law liability of a landlord for safe condition of approaches to, and stairs and hallways in premises used in common by different tenants does not ordinarily require him to keep the ordinary halls and stairways lighted.” See cases there cited.
In that case it was contended that the rule stated, supra, did not apply because of the provisions of Sec. 3361 C.G.L., 511.13 Fla. Stats. 1941 (same F.S.A.), which provisions are not applicable here.
Both the original and amended declarations failed to allege a cause of action and, therefore, judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Night Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Green, 71 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1954)…y material fact and there was nothing to submit to the jury. There was no conflict in the testimony to justify a submission of the question of contributory negligence to the jury. Norman v. Shulman, 150 Fla. 142, 7 So. 2d 98; Westerbeke v. Reynolds, 155 Fla. 2, 19 So. 2d 413; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366; Tutwiler v. I. Beverally Nalle, Inc., 152 Fla. 479, 12 So. 2d 163; Miller v. Shull, Fla., 48 So. 2d 521; MacMillan v. Insurance Exchange Bldg., Fla., 58 So. 2d 163; Bow…
-
City OF Palatka v. Woods, 78 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1955)…e darkness and is injured by an encounter with the very impediment which he knew or should have known existed, he is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Breau v. Whitmore, supra [Fla., 59 So. 2d 748]; Westerbeke v. Reynolds, supra [155 Fla. 2, 19 So. 2d 413]; Norman v. Shulman, supra [150 Fla. 142, 7 So. 2d 98], See also Nussbaum v. Sovereign Hotel Corp., Fla., 1954, 72 So. 2d 814.” Applying the above rule, the question of contributory negligence in this case is squarely for the jury to…
-
Brant v. van Zandt, 77 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1954)…v. Whitmore, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 748, involved an accident in a common hallway but there was no allegation that the hallway was so dark as to require artificial lighting. The plaintiff did not look where he was going. Westerbeke v. Reynolds, 1944, 155 Fla. 2, 19 So. 2d 413, is not in point for two reasons, first, the case did not involve the question of whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence or had assumed the risk, and second, it went off on the theory that the statutory duty upon…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dempsey-Vanderbilt Hotel, Inc. v. Coanraad Huisman, 153 Fla. 800 (Fla. 1943)
- Matilda Norman v. Shulman, 150 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1942)