BRUNO
v.
SEIGEL
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.
Jerry Bruno sued Harry Seigel for injuries sustained from slipping and falling on Seigel's gasoline station premises. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that Bruno was a licensee rather than an invitee, and thus Seigel owed him no duty beyond refraining from willful or wanton harm.
The plaintiff was a licensee rather than an invitee because he was on the premises solely for his own convenience and benefit, not to transact business with the defendant. As a licensee, the defendant owed him no duty except not to harm him willfully or wantonly, set traps for him, or expose him to reckless or wanton danger.
“the plaintiff was not on the premises for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant but was there solely for his own convenience and benefit. Under these circumstances the plaintiff was a licensee and the defendant owed him no duty except not to harm him wilfully or wantonly, or to set traps for him, or to expose him to danger recklessly or wantonly.”
The court's holding establishing the legal standard of care owed to a licensee on the defendant's property.
Bruno slipped and fell on a concrete areaway at Seigel's gasoline filling station on September 28, 1952. Bruno had been transported by a friend to the…
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 Duty Of Care To Licensee cases and more on FLexlaw
SEBRING, Justice.
Jerry Bruno, the plaintiff below, instituted suit against the defendant, Harry Seigel, to recover damages for injuries sustained when the plaintiff slipped and fell on a concrete areaway owned by the defendant. The complaint in the cause alleged, in substance, that the defendant owned and operated a gasoline filling station and that many people walked across the premises as a short cut to a public bus stop; that early in the morning of September 28, 1952, while walking across the defendant’s property on the way to board a bus, the plaintiff slipped and fell on some slippery substance and was injured. The complaint further alleged, “upon information and belief,” that the defendant had knowledge of the fact that many persons walked across the premises in going to and from the bus stop, yet so carelessly and negligently maintained the premises as to cause the accident.
The defendant Seigel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. He also took the plaintiff’s deposition, and, thereafter, moved the court for the entry of a summary judgment on the complaint and deposition, on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material facts and that consequently the defendant was entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment was granted and this appeal followed.
We find no error in the judgment appealed from. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff slipped and fell on defendant’s premises while he was on his way to catch a bus. The deposition reveals that the plaintiff was transported by a friend from his home to the corner where the defendant’s filling station was located. After he got out of the automobile, the plaintiff walked onto the defendant’s premises, which, at that hour of the day, were not open for business, in order “to relax there and to wait for to catch the bus.” When he slipped and fell on what he thought was a grease spot approximately two or three inches in size, he was going out to the curb to catch a bus.
It is plain from the allegations of the complaint and the undisputed facts developed by the deposition that the plaintiff was not on the premises for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant but was there solely for his own convenience and benefit. Under these circumstances the plaintiff was a licensee and the defendant owed him no duty except not to harm him wilfully or wantonly, or to set traps for him, or to expose him to danger recklessly or wantonly.’ ” Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla., 67 So. 2d 653, 654; Porchey v. Kelling, 353 Mo. 1034, 185 S.W. 2d 820.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, €. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Holland, 79 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1955)…railroad company owed no duty to the decedent, as a trespasser or even as a mere licensee, “ ‘ “except not to harm him wil-fully or wantonly, or to set traps for him, or to expose him to danger recklessly or wantonly.” ’ ” Bruno v. Seigel, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 674, 675, citing Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla., 67 So. 2d 653, 654. It must be remembered that the engineer owed a duty to his passengers, which is of a higher degree than that owed to a trespasser, Butler v. Southern Ry. Co., 63 Fla. 95, 58 So. 225, and t…
-
Collom v. Holton, 449 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ts, and depositions clearly indicate the decedents came “upon the premises solely for their own convenience without invitation either expressed or reasonably implied under the circumstances.” Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1973); Bruno v. Seigel, 73 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1954); see generally Prosser, Law of Torts § 60, p. 377 (4th ed. 1971). Nevertheless, we hold, upon reviewing the same pleadings, affidavits, and depositions in a light most favorable to the non-moving parties, that genuine issues of material f…
-
Schroeder v. Grables Bakery, Inc., 149 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…defendants owed no duty except not to harm her willfully, wantonly or to set a trap for her or to expose her to danger recklessly or wantonly, and that the defendants’ conduct did not violate this purely negative duty. See Bruno v. Seigel, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 674, and Baird v. Goldberg, Ky.1940 [283 Ky. 558], 142 S.W. 2d 120. “The instant case differs materially from those cases cited by plaintiff where the walkway had at one time been a public walk and was subsequently withdrawn from public use for private…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stewart v. Tex. Co., 67 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1953)