LINDA BARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL OSMAN ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Linda Barker, a domestic servant employed by the Osmans, sued for injuries sustained when an antique dining room table collapsed while she and Mrs. Osman were using it to repaint the ceiling. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of any inspection of the table must be determined by a jury.
Summary judgment was improper because questions of fact exist for the jury to determine: (1) whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the table's defect, and (2) whether the inspection actually performed by the Osmans was reasonable under the circumstances of using the antique table to support two adults while painting.
[1] A jury must determine whether a reasonable inspection of an antique table was conducted before its use as a platform for painting a ceiling.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when questions of fact exist regarding the reasonableness of an inspection for defects in a table.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It was for a jury to determine whether, under the circumstances, there was a reasonable inspection of the antique table prior to using it as a platform to support two adult females in an enterprise of painting the dining room ceiling.”
Establishes that questions of fact regarding the reasonableness of inspection are for the jury, not the trial court, on summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda Barker was employed by the Osmans as a nanny and domestic servant. While helping Mrs. Osman repaint the dining room ceiling on the second day of…
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 To Inspect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Linda Barker, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from an adverse summary final judgment granted in favor of the Osmans and their insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
Linda Barker, who was employed by the Osmans as a “nanny” and as a domestic servant, brought an action for damages for her personal injuries suffered when she fell off an antique dining room table while helping Mrs. Osman repaint the ceiling in the Osman home. The incident occurred during the second day that Linda Barker and Mrs. Osman were using the table.
In her deposition, the appellant-plaintiff stated that without warning one of the legs of the table gave way and both she and Mrs. Osman fell to the floor. There is no evidence in the record as to what caused the leg to give way nor whether or not the leg was defective. Upon the Osmans’ motion for summary judgment, the court reviewed the depositions, affidavits, and the photographs of the table in question, and entered final judgment in favor of the Osmans and their insurance carrier. The appellant contends the trial court erred in entering final summary judgment in favor of the Osmans because there are questions of fact to be determined by the jury: first, whether or not a reasonable inspection would have revealed the table was defective and second, if so, whether the inspection which was made by the Osmans was reasonable under the circumstances. American Box & Lumber Company v. Chandler, 122 Fla. 169, 165 So. 382 (1935); C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91, 172 So. 694 (1937); Kenan v. Walker, 127 Fla. 275, 173 So. 836 (1936); Schneider v. K.S.B. Realty & Investing Corp., 128 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1961); Pierson v. Seale, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1961); Beebe v. Kaplan, 177 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1965); Sonnenborn v. Gartrell, 179 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1965).
It was for a jury to determine whether, under the circumstances, there was a reasonable inspection of the antique table prior to using it as a platform to support two adult females in an enterprise of painting the dining room ceiling. Therefore, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause is returned to the trial court for a trial on the issues as made by the pleadings.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iviricu v. Velasco, 669 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ovide the plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in, and reason [*338] ably safe tools and equipment with which to work. See Zygmont v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Dearing v. Reese, 519 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Barker v. Osman, 340 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), and cases cited; Westberry v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 191 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1967).…
Authorities Cited
- C. F. Hamblen, Inc. v. Owens, 127 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1937)
- Beebe v. Kaplan, 177 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Meyer Schneider v. K. S. B. Realty & Investing Corp., 128 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Sonnenborn v. Blanche Murray Gartrell, 179 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Martin v. Martin, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Pierson v. Seale, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Am. Box & Lumber Co. v. Chandler, 122 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1935)
- Kenan v. Walker, 127 Fla. 275 (Fla. 1936)