CHARITY L. HESTER, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES S. GUARINO, 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.
A tenant sued her landlord for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident in a hole on the lawn near the rear entrance of the apartment building. The trial court directed a verdict for the landlord, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on the landlord's negligence in maintaining the premises.
The directed verdict for the landlord was improper. When viewed in the light most favorable to the tenant, the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on the landlord's negligence. Although a landlord's duty is one of reasonable care only, the evidence supported an inference that the hole existed for sufficient time and that the landlord, through ordinary care in mowing or trimming the grass, should have discovered the depression.
[1] A landlord has an affirmative obligation to exercise reasonable care to inspect and repair common passages for the protection of tenants.
[2] A landlord is not liable for an injury caused by a defect in the premises if the defect was not discoverable by reasonable inspection or was created by the tenant, unless…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the landlord is under an affirmative obligation to exercise reasonable care to inspect and repair approaches and common passages for the protection of tenants”
Establishes the landlord's duty of care toward tenants in common areas of the premises
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTenant Hester had rented an apartment for about one month and slipped and fell in a hole measuring twelve inches long, four to six inches deep, and fo…
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 Notice Of Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-plaintiff Hester (“Tenant”) seeks review of a final judgment entered in favor of appellee-defendant Gua-rino (“Landlord”) pursuant to a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence in a jury trial of a slip-and-fall case. The negligence alleged was in the operation or maintenance of a walkway used by the tenant, in front of the back entrance of her apartment.
Appellant had been a tenant, for about a month, in an apartment building owned by appellee-landlord. She allegedly slipped and fell in a twelve inch long, four to six inch deep, and four inch wide hole at 12:30 A.M., April 19, 1967. The hole was in the grassy, lawn area near the rear entrance of her apartment. She had just returned from working as a waitress.
The landlord had instructed her to use the parking area and rear entrance in question to reach her apartment, due to parking problems at the side entrance.
Defendant had personally mowed this lawn, where the accident occurred, about two weeks before the accident. The hole *564was grassy, and the grass in the hole grew to the level of the grass of the lawn. The tenant’s employer testified that he looked for and found the hole the following morning. Her doctor also testified that she had told him that she fell in a hole. The physician, however, traversed the area about twelve hours after the accident but did not find the hole. This tenant regularly and frequently walked over this area prior to the accident.
The tenant generally contends for reversal that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the landlord, where the plaintiff tenant was caused to fall by a hole in area used by the tenant to enter the apartment, which area was maintained by the landlord, and where there was evidence that the hole had existed for sufficient time to allow grass to grow from such hole to the level of the remaining area. The landlord, however, contends that he is not liable for an accident allegedly caused by a defect in his premises where there is no evidence as to the cause of the defect or how long such defect existed before the accident.
The landlord is under an affirmative obligation to exercise reasonable care to inspect and repair approaches and common passages for the protection of tenants. However, the “ * * * obligation is one of reasonable care only, and the lessor is not liable where no injury to anyone was reasonably to be anticipated, or the condition was not discoverable by reasonable inspection, or it was created by the tenant or another, unless it is shown to have been of such duration as to permit the conclusion that due care would have discovered it.” Prosser, Torts § 63, p. 419 (3rd ed. 1964).
We express the view that when considered in the light most favorable to appellant, and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, the evidence is sufficient to present a jury question as to the negligence of the landlord. Specifically, the hole was about a foot long, four to six inches deep and four inches wide. Grass does not grow in and around such a hole overnight, nor over a brief period of time. The inference may also be drawn that when the .defendant mowed or trimmed the grass, in the exercise of ordinary care he could and should have discovered the depression.
Goldman v. Kossove, 2S3 N.C. 370, 117 S.E.2d 35 (1960) concerned the slip and fall of a business invitee in a grassy hole at an entranceway. There, the owner of the premises was held not liable, over a cogent dissent by Justice Moore. We note that the evidence in the instant case is stronger than in the North Carolina case. See also Americana of Bal Harbour, Inc. v. Kiester, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 121, which was released after the judgment herein appealed was entered. In that case this court affirmed the judgment entered for the plaintiff, a business invitee, who slipped and fell on a liquid on an outside terrazzo stairway.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate Judge, dissents. . These figures of course do not include unreported crimes or those which occurred only in the neighborhood of the complex. . Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226 (1941); Hester v. Guarino, 251 So. 2d 563 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 259 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1972). .The plaintiffs appellate presentation includes extensive references to the defendant’s alleged failure properly to light the area in question. We have not considered this ground of asser…
-
Guarino v. Charity L. Hester, 259 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 251 So. 2d 563. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
-
Hernando Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Nazar, 950 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…sufficient evidence that the School Board had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition. I believe the trial court properly determined that the issue of constructive knowledge was for the jury to decide. Hester v. Guarino, 251 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Alternatively, the School Board contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for new trial. I agree. [*534] The trial was marred by the Nazars’ misconduct. There were several instances where the Nazars, o…
Authorities Cited
- Americana OF BAL Harbour, Inc. v. Kiester, 245 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)