HILDA KRONER, APPELLANT,
v.
FOOD FAIR STORES, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, AND FOOD FAIR STORES, MIAMI BEACH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Hilda Kroner appealed a summary judgment entered against her in a negligence action arising from a fall over a shopping cart in a grocery store. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Kroner failed to establish sufficient proof of negligence as a matter of law.
The court held that Kroner failed to establish proof of negligence sufficient to survive summary judgment. The trial court properly entered summary judgment for the defendants because the factual circumstances—involving an object on the floor for only five to ten minutes that was not store equipment—distinguished the case from Woolworth v. Stevens and did not create a jury question on negligence.
“the question of negligence was for the jury. In the present case, the plaintiff could establish that the object was on the floor a period of five to ten minutes. The object over which the plaintiff tripped was not a part of the usual equipment of the store and had no connection with the operation of the store.”
The distinction drawn between the Woolworth case and the instant case, establishing why summary judgment was appropriate here despite prior precedent allowing jury questions on negligence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKroner was injured when she stumbled over a shopping cart in a Food Fair grocery store in Miami Beach, Florida. The shopping cart was a two-wheeled ca…
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 Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
Hilda Kroner was injured when she stumbled over a shopping cart in a grocery store located in Miami Beach, Florida. She sued the operators of the store. The defendants moved for a summary judgment after taking the plaintiffs deposition and propounding certain interrogatories which were answered. The motion was granted, and this appeal is from the judgment which followed.
The thrust of appellant’s argument is that the trial judge committed error in granting a summary judgment because the facts of the instant case bring it within the purview of the holding in F. W. Woolworth Company v. Stevens, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 201. It is only necessary to point out the factual differences in order to distinguish the cases. The proposition advanced in the Woolworth case was that under the particular facts of that case, where the plaintiff was able to establish that the floor had not been cleaned of a dangerous substance for an extended period of time, the question of negligence was for the jury. In the present case, the plaintiff could establish that the object was on the floor a period of five to' ten minutes. The object over which the plaintiff tripped was not a part of the usual equipment of the store and had no connection with the operation of the store.1
We therefore hold that the plaintiff failed' to establish that she had available for trial any proof of negligence. The trial court, properly entered summary judgment for the-defendant. Cf., Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty, Fla.1959, 109 So.2d 5; Grand Union Supermarkets, Inc. v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 788.
Appellant has also assigned and argued' error upon the court’s refusal to allow the filing of an affidavit after the time had expired for filing a motion for rehearing but while a motion for rehearing was pending. We do not discuss this question because an examination of the affidavit reveals that it is insufficient to change the-application of the law properly applied by the trial judge in granting the summary-judgment. We note also that we have not considered appellees’ argument directed to-the existence of contributory negligence as. a matter of law.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 41 Fla. Supp. 140 (St. Lucie Cty. Cir. Ct. 1974)…set aside the final judgment rendered herein and to enter judgment non obstante veredicto in its favor on the grounds that there is no competent evidence to support the judgment. The defendant relies on the case of Kroner v. Food Fair Stores, Inc., 184 So. 2d 909 (1966), which holds that the plaintiff failed to establish-negligence where she could only show that the cart over which she tripped was on the floor of the store a period of five to ten minutes. The object over which Mrs. Kroner tripped was not [*1…
Authorities Cited
- Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc. v. Patty, 109 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1959)
- F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Emily Ann Stevens and her husband, 154 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Grand Union Supermarkets, Inc. v. Fannie M. Griffin and her husband, 156 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)