WIDO E. DE IULIIS, APPELLANT,
v.
TOM HAGENBUCH 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.
This case concerns whether a person trimming shrubs for compensation on another's property is an invitee or a licensee. The appellate court held that such a person is an invitee, reversing the trial court's directed verdict for the landowner.
The trial court erred in determining the plaintiff was a licensee. Under the economic or mutual benefit theory, the plaintiff was an invitee.
[1] A person is an invitee on another's land where their presence is for the mutual economic benefit of the parties.
[2] A trial court errs in granting a directed verdict based on a plaintiff's status as a licensee when the undisputed facts establish the plaintiff was an invitee.
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“Under the economic or mutual benefit theory a person is an invitee on another’s land where the former’s presence is for the mutual economic benefit of the parties.”
Establishes the legal principle used to determine the plaintiff's status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Wido De Iuliis, was injured when he fell on the defendants' property. He was on the premises at the defendants' request to trim shrubs …
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 Licensee Status cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Wido E. De Iuliis, was the plaintiff below. He filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida, alleging that on 24 February 1969 he was injured as a result of a fall on the premises of defendants Tom and Dorothy Hagenbuch. The cause proceeded to a jury trial in November of 1970. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a licensee on defendants’ premises at the time of the accident and granted a motion for directed verdict on the ground that no evidence had been presented which would have established defendants’ liability to a licensee. A final judgment was rendered and this appeal followed.
The issue here is whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the plaintiff as a matter of law was a licensee on the premises of the defendants at the time of the accident.
Under the undisputed facts, at the time of the accident the plaintiff was on the defendants’ property at defendants’ request for the purpose of trimming shrubs thereon for an agreed compensation. Under the economic or mutual benefit theory a person is an invitee on another’s land where the former’s presence is for the mutual economic benefit of the parties. McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185. It appears to us that under the facts of this case which are without dispute the plaintiff at the time of the accident was as a matter of law an invitee — not a licensee — on defendants’ premises. We, therefore, hold that the trial court erred when it determined that the plaintiff was a licensee and granted the defendants’ motion for directed verdict. We have not overlooked the case relied on by the defendants, City of Boca Raton v. Mattef, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 644. We believe it to be so dissimilar factually to the present case that it cannot be considered a controlling precedent.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- ST. Johns Cnty. v. Murphy, 97 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1957)
- City OF Boca Raton v. Minda S. Mattef, 91 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1956)