GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HELEN DOLES, 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.
General Development Corporation appeals from a jury verdict in a slip-and-fall case at a model home. The court reverses, holding that the evidence is insufficient to support liability where a plaintiff fell entering a sunken living room with visible structural differences and no hidden dangers.
The court held that no triable issue of fact existed. The sunken living room's different levels constitute visible structural design requiring no warning. The carpeting did not create a hidden condition as there was a visible border between rooms, and plaintiff testified to no visual obstruction from crowds.
[1] A defendant is not liable for injuries resulting from a visible structural design feature, such as a sunken living room, where there are no distractions or impeding objec…
[2] A plaintiff's own testimony that there were no obstructions to their vision negates a claim that crowd congestion caused a dangerous condition.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is a matter of common knowledge that the design of a sunken living room necessitates different levels. The case concerns a visible structural design involving no distraction or impeding objects attributable to the defendant, and the circumstances were not such as to place the defendant under a duty to warn.”
Establishes the legal standard that visible structural design of sunken living rooms requires no warning duty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was an invitee inspecting a model home built by defendant. She fell while entering a sunken living room from the dining area. Plaintiff test…
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 Slip And Fall cases and more on FLexlaw
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
Defendant-appellant appeals from a denial of its motion for directed verdict and consequent final judgment entered on a jury verdict. The sole question is whether the evidence is sufficient to raise triable issues.
Plaintiff was an invitee in a model home built by defendant and opened for inspection to the general public. While inside the house she fell while entering the sunken living room from the dining area. The facts herein are strikingly similar to those in Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc.1 That case was also a slip and fall case in which the plaintiff tripped while entering a sunken living room as she was inspecting a model home owned by the defendant. In affirming a summary judgment for defendant this court held that:
“. . . It is a matter of common knowledge that the design of a sunken living room necessitates different levels. The case concerns a visible structural design involving no distraction or impeding objects attributable to the defendant, and the circumstances were not such as to place the defendant under a duty to warn.”
Appellee contends that the crowd congestion and the similarity of the carpeting covering both the dining room and the sunken living room could have caused a dangerous condition, hiding the step-down from the plaintiff. The fatal problem with this theory as to the crowded condition is that plaintiff herself testified in response to a question asked by her attorney as follows :
“Q Was there any obstruction to your vision in terms of other people or anything that — ?
A No; just that it was a general view of the room; and then I fell.”
As to the sameness of the carpeting, testimony and photographs of the premises introduced into evidence undisputedly show that the carpeting did not extend to the edge of the dining area or the sunken living room; so there was a “border” between the rooms which, if anything, was a contrast rather than a continuous similarity as suggested by appellee. Clearly, no triable issue existed on this point either. Therefore, this cause is controlled by Jahn, supra, and the judgment of the trial court must be, and it is hereby, reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . (Fla.App.2d, 1964), 166 So. 2d 768.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1983)…nied, 373 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979). A difference in floor level, particularly in the living room area of a private room, is not in itself an obstacle or dangerous condition requiring warning by the home owner. General Development Corporation v. Doles, 309 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). However, circumstances could arise which impose a duty upon the homeowner to warn a guest. In Ellis v. McCaskill plaintiff had never been in the defendant’s hom…1 / 2
-
Zambito v. Southland Rec. Enters., Inc., 383 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ff was the danger of falling while roller-skating The court further stated that it did not consider the doctrine of “assumed risk”, but relied on the decisions in Hall v. Holton, 330 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); General Development Corp. v. Doles, 309 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), and Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). DISCUSSION In 1973, tjie supreme court established the doctrine of comparative negligence in Florida and held that a plaintiff was no longer barred from re…
-
Kupperman v. Levine, 462 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…or the safety of a person invited to the premises and there is no duty to issue warning of such condition when it is obvious and not inherently dangerous. ” Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955). See also General Development Corp. v. Doles, 309 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Because a difference in floor levels is not an inherently dangerous condition, even in dim lighting, a homeowner has no duty to warn of such condition as a matt…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)