NUSSBAUM
v.
SOVEREIGN HOTEL CORP.
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 landlord-tenant dispute, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a negligence complaint where a tenant was injured after falling in darkness caused by an overloaded electrical circuit. The court held that tenants assume the risk of premises conditions under the caveat emptor doctrine, and any negligence was counterbalanced by the tenant's contributory negligence in moving about in the dark.
No. The court held that a tenant assumes the risk of the condition of premises possessed by the lessee under the caveat emptor rule, and that even if negligence could be found, it was counterbalanced by the tenant's contributory negligence in moving about in darkness she was familiar with.
“where the lessor surrenders to the lessee possession and control of the premises the tenant "assumes the risk as to the condition of the premises" except, of course, that there be no fraud or concealment on the part of the lessor”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that tenants assume premises risk under caveat emptor, with limited exceptions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant operated an apartment hotel where the plaintiff rented rooms. One night while in her quarters, the lights went out due to insufficient 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 Landlord Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The circuit judge sustained the defendant’s " attack on "the" complaint and gave-no permission to amend so-we must decide whether a cause of-action was stated.
From the allegations it appears that the defendant operated an apartment hotel in which the plaintiff occupied rooms. One night, while she was in her own quarters, the' “lights’ * * - * went out and the plaintiff because of the• darkness tripped * * * fell and was * * * injured * * (Emphasis supplied.)
Amplifying the negligence suggested by the words we have italicized, the plaintiff charged that the wiring in the apartment was, insufficient to carry the current required to supply the many appliances that had been installed and that -as a result frequent blackouts had occurred. All this, said the plaintiff, the defendant knew.
We may assume from all the allegations that the appellant was fully acquainted with her surroundings, and certainly no . obstacle over which she fell was put in her way by the appellee. If she wandered in the dark it was her own fault. The-sole negligence charged was the failure of the landlord to provide for equipment that would have admitted sufficient electricity into the building tó prevent the darkness that resulted from an overloaded circuit.
We do not find the averments a basis fomrecovery. Thé opinion in Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141, 25 So. 2d 205, detailed circumstances of injury much more favorable to the tenant’s claim, we think, than are present here yet the CQurt ruled against the plaintiff. A tenant was hurt when a hot water heater exploded. The Court decided that there was no liability on the part of the landlord and made the pronouncement that where the lessor surrenders to the lessee possession and control of the premises the tenant “assumes the risk as to the condition of the premises” except, of course, that there be no fraud or concealment on the part of the lessor. The rule of caveat emptor, said the Court, applied in such circumstances.
Obviously the appellant was not injured from the mere failure of the lights, or, rather, from the failure of the appellee so td improve the system as to prevent the lights from going out because of the overload. Under the case just cited she accepted that situation anyway. She was injured because she moved about in the darkness. Even if we could discover in the averments a proper charge of negligence on the part of the landlord, we should feel that it was counterbalanced by the contributory negligence manifest from the complaint.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J.,. and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Palatka v. Woods, 78 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1955)…y 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 decide. The evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff below was not aware of the dangerous condition of the sidewalk prior to the time of in…
-
Brant v. van Zandt, 77 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1954)…o place lights where necessary did not apply to the garage apartment or private home type of structure, because at common law there was no duty on such owner to light ordinary halls and stairways. [*863] Nussbaum v. Sovereign Hotel Corp., Fla. 1954, 72 So. 2d 814, is likewise not in point as I see it for the reason that the tenant was injured in her own apartment, alleging' as the proximate cause the failure of the landlord to provide modern wiring as the lights in her apartment went out because of an overlo…1 / 2
-
Thomas v. McDONALD and Eunice R. McDonald, 309 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…35, and annotations; Gobrecht v. Beckwith, 82 N.H. 415, 135 A. 20, 52 A.L.R. 858, and annotations.” (25 So. 2d at pages 206 and 207) Control, therefore, appears to be an all important factor. (See Nussbaum v. Sovereign Hotel Corp., Sup.Ct.Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 814) In Propper v. Kesner, Sup.Ct.Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 1, our Supreme Court distinguished, but did not recede from, Brooks v. Peters, supra, observing that “in that case there was no notice to the landlord of any possible defective condition of the hea…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)
- Kinkelaar v. Luella S. Kinkelaar, 157 Fla. 141 (Fla. 1946)