MILTON SAMPSON AND ANNE DAUBER SAMPSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
STANLEY CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a tenant's lawsuit against their landlord. The court held that the tenant assumed the risk of injury from falling plaster due to the building's age and decrepitude, as the tenant had the same opportunity as the landlord to discover the defect.
Yes, the doctrine of caveat emptor applies, and the tenant takes the property as they find it when they have the same opportunities as the owner to discover a defect at the time of leasing.
“If the tenant has the same opportunities -as the owner to discover a defect at the time of the leasing, then .the rule of caveat emptor applies and-the tenant - takes the property as he finds it.”
Establishes the legal principle applied to the case regarding tenant responsibility for discovering defects.
Appellants leased an apartment in an old building owned by the appellee. The building was deteriorating prior to the lease. Nearly two years after 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.
HOBSON, Justice.
The amended complaint in this action was .dismissed for insufficiency, without leave further to amend. It alleges, inter alia, that appellants leased an apartment from the appellee corporation in an old building owned by the latter, that the building “had begun to deteriorate prior to the time the aforedescribed lease agreement was entered into”, and that nearly two years after the lease commenced, appellants were injured when plaster fell from the ceiling of their bedroom. It appears from the affirmative allegations of the amended complaint that the age and decreptitude of the building at the time the lea.se was entered should have caused the tenants to make a thorough' examination of the apartment in which ‘ they planned to live, and had they done so at that time or within the succeeding period of almost two years, they would have been in as good a. position as the landlord to discover the condition of. the plaster. As we said in Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226, 229:
“If the tenant has the same opportunities -as the owner to discover a defect at the time of the leasing, then .the rule of caveat emptor applies and-the tenant - takes the property as he finds it.”
This principle controls the present case.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS .and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. O'Connor, 106 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…together with the affidavits that neither the landlord nor the tenant had knowledge of the latent defect. The judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule set forth in Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226; Sampson v. Stanley Corp., Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 186; cf. Propper v. Kesner, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 1. Affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Zubowicz v. Warnock, 149 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…agent. Under the evidence adduced in the court below, the rule of caveat emptor applies and there can be no recovery. See Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226; Brooks v. Peters, 157 Fla. 141, 25 So. 2d 205; Sampson v. Stanley Corporation, Fla., 75 So. 2d 186. Having determined that appellant’s evidence was insufficient for a verdict in his favor, it is unnecessary that we consider the additional ground stated by the court below for its action. Affirmed. KANNER, A. C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33 (Fla. 1941)