PFILIP G. HUNT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SLIPPERY DIP OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., 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 court affirmed summary judgment for a water slide operator in a negligence action, holding that the operator owed no duty to warn an 18-year-old invitee about the risks of jumping a wall on the slide where the invitee's knowledge of the danger was equal to the operator's and the slide was designed for that maneuver.
A business operator owes no duty to warn an invitee of a danger when the invitee's knowledge of the risk is at least equal to the operator's knowledge and there is no latent or hidden defect.
[1] A business operator's duty to warn an invitee of danger arises only when the operator's knowledge of the danger is superior to that of the invitee.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn 18-year-old plaintiff was injured while attempting to jump a concrete wall separating two troughs at a water slide operated by the defendant. The p…
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 Business Invitee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee, Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., in a negligence action. We affirm.
The appellant was injured at a water slide operated by the appellee. The appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of the injury, was attempting to “jump the wall,” which consisted of crossing over a concrete wall that separated two adjoining troughs. Before the appellant’s accident, he had been down the slide 20 to 25 times that day (usually attempting to “jump the wall” in tandem with his girlfriend, who successfully completed the maneuver while appellant did not) and had used the same slide on two previous occasions. The trial judge entered the summary final judgment against the appellant upon the authority of Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Ball v. Ates, 369 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We agree with the trial judge. The applicable rule in those cases is that a defendant’s knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee in order to create a duty on the part of the defendant to warn. In the instant case, the record shows that the knowledge of the appellant/invitee of the risk involved in using the water slide was at least equal to that of the appellee. Furthermore, the record indicates that the slide was designed to allow jumping the wall, and there was no evidence of a latent or hidden defect m the slide.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emmons v. Baptist Hosp. & Servicemaster Indus., Inc., 478 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…knowledge of the danger must be superior to that of the business invitee. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Ball v. Ates, 369 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We next turn to the first theory enumerated above regarding landowner duty to business invitees. The plaintiff asserts that the evidence was sufficient to entitle her to submission to the jury of the question of whether the def…
-
Lynch v. Brown, 489 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…gment. Taylor v. Tolbert Enterprises, Inc., 439 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). REVERSED AND REMANDED. NIMMONS, J., concurs in result with written opinion. BOOTH, C.J., dissents with written opinion. . Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), are distinguishable because, unlike the instant case, there was no contention in either case that the landlord’s premises were defective and unreasonably dangerous to pers…1 / 2
-
Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 213 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ect causing his own injury. First, we hold that Appellees owed no duty to warn Appellant of the open and obvious condition, because Appellees’ knowledge of the condition was not “superior” to Appellant’s. Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc., 453 So. 2d 139, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that “defendant’s knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee ... to create a duty on the part of the defendant to warn.”); see also McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So. 2d 470, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Ball v. Ates, 369 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)