DAVID D. QUINN AND BEVERLY QUINN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
I. C. HELMLY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., 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.
Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of a furniture store after the wife slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk caused by water discharge from the store's downspout. The court reversed, holding that negligence and contributory negligence issues are generally unsuitable for summary adjudication and must be resolved by a jury.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Issues of negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily unsuitable for summary adjudication and should be resolved by a jury.
“The function of the court under the summary judgment procedure is to determine whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact, not to decide such issues.”
Establishes the proper standard for summary judgment, limiting courts to determining existence of disputed facts rather than resolving them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeverly Quinn was injured when she slipped and fell on a sidewalk adjacent to the defendant's store entrance. The sidewalk had been made slippery by 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 Due Care cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs, husband and wife, seek review of an adverse summary final judgment entered consequent upon the granting by the trial court of defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff wife was injured when, upon leaving defendant’s store in which she had been shopping, she slipped and fell on a part of the sidewalk adjacent to the en-tranceway, which had been made slippery by the discharge of water from defendant’s down spout. The day was clear and dry. The slippery spot was about a foot wide and extended from the down spout across the sidewalk to the curb. Its dark green color contrasted with the light color of the sidewalk and would have been visible to plaintiff wife had she been looking in that direction.
Plaintiffs brought suit against defendant for negligence. Defendant answered pleading .contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. Subsequently, defendant moved for summary judgment. After hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion and entered the order appealed.
Appellants contend the trial court erred since there are present genuine issues of material fact which preclude disposition of this case by summary adjudication. We find this contention has merit.
The function of the court under the summary judgment procedure is to determine whether there exist any genuine issues of material fact, not to decide such issues. Foster v. Gulfstream Press, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 270; Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 651; Buck v. Hardy, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 428. In Buck v. Hardy, supra, this court said:
“[Ijssues of negligence, including such related issues as contributory negligence, are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against the claimant, but should be resolved in the ordinary manner.”
Where the case is close on these issues, doubt should always be resolved in favor of a jury trial. Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five,- Inc., supra; Bess v. 17545 Collins Ave., Inc., Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 490.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, we find that, though a jury upon consideration of all the circumstances might find that plaintiff wife was guilty of contributory negligence, the record does not indicate that she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Accordingly, it was error to summarily adjudicate that question. This is so even though the record may warrant the conclusion that the spot upon which plaintiff wife fell would have been visible to her had she been looking in that direction. The Supreme Court of Florida, in City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 278, said:
“ * * * If visibility alone settled contributory negligence every case of slipping on a floor or of encountering any stationary object would automatically be a case of non-liability for in all *304these cases the condition which caused the harm was visible. The question always is whether the plaintiff used due care for his own safety, taking into account all the circumstances, of which the visibility of the object encountered is an important one, but still only one of the circumstances.”
See also Hanson v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla. App.1961, 133 So.2d 573; Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 575; Warring v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915; Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 884.
It follows that the judgment appealed should be, and is accordingly, reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc., 160 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…no such cause would be permitted to go to a jury.”) ; Sandford v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, Fla.App., 139 So. 2d 916 (oil spot in filling station— District Court of Appeal, Third District.) ; Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Company, Fla.App., 141 So. 2d 302 (water drained on sidewalk — District Court of Appeal, Third District); Berlin v. Southgate Corp., Fla.App., 142 So. 2d 362 (metal strip along floor in apartment house — District Court of Appeal, Third District).…
-
Hogan v. Chupka, 579 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…985) (whether step-down over which a display rack was extended, possibly distracting shoppers and whether shoppers exercised reasonable care held to be questions for the jury precluding summary judgment). See also Quinn v. I.C. Helmly Furniture Co., 141 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (liability of premise owner to injured pedestrian who fell on sidewalk made slip [*397] pery by discharge from defendant’s visible downspout could not properly be resolved on summary judgment). Where the premise occupier as a rea…
-
Fanny Berlin and Irving Berlin v. Southgate Corp., 142 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…ted the conclusion that the strip would have been visible to plaintiff had she been looking in that direction, this fact alone would not settle the question of contributory negligence. See Quinn v. I. C. Helmly Furniture Company, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 302; Hanson v. Shell’s City, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 573; Purdon v. Cohen, Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 575; Warring v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., supra; Shell’s Super Store, Inc. v. Parker, Fla.App.1958, 103 So. 2d 884; City of Jacksonville v. Stokes,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Lager, 105 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- City of Jacksonville v. Stokes, 74 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1954)
- Bess v. 17545 Collins Ave., Inc., 98 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1957)
- Elva Buck and Lawrence Buck v. Hardy, 106 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Holmes v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 133 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Purdon v. Cohen, 126 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Int'l HOD Carriers' v. Heftler Constr. Co., 103 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Foster v. Gulfstream Press, Inc., 134 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Phillips v. Cnty. OF Dade, 133 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Hanson v. Shell's City, Inc., 133 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)