FLORENCE M. BECKSTED, APPELLANT,
v.
RIVERSIDE BANK OF MIAMI, A BANKING INSTITUTION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment for a bank, holding that a customer injured by stepping on a drain grating in the bank's parking lot could not recover damages. The court found the customer failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety by not observing an obvious condition.
No, the bank was not liable. Even assuming the plaintiff was a business invitee, she had a duty to observe obvious conditions of the premises and exercise reasonable care for her own safety, which she failed to do.
“Even if it be assumed that plaintiff was a business invitee on the bank's parking lot, it was nonetheless her duty to see that which would be obvious to her upon the ordinary use of her senses and to exercise a reasonable degree of care for her own safety.”
Establishes the duty of care owed by an invitee to observe obvious conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorence Becksted, the plaintiff, was injured when she stepped on a drain grating in a parking lot maintained by Riverside Bank for its customers. The…
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.
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellant, plaintiff below, was injured when she stepped on a grating covering a drain in a parking lot maintained by the defendant bank, appellee here, for its customers, and sued the bank.for damages for its alleged negligence in maintaining the drain. The deposition of the plaintiff was taken and, on the basis of such deposition and exhibits filed by defendant, the trial judge entered a summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.
Some discussion is had here of the question of whether the plaintiff was a business visitor of the bank or a mere licensee; but we think a decision of that question is unnecessary. Even if it be assumed that plaintiff was a business invitee on the bank’s parking lot, it was nonetheless her duty to see that which would be obvious to her upon the ordinary use of her senses and to exercise a reasonable degree of care for her own safety. Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 1953, Fla., 63 So. 2d 769, 772. “ * * * The duty which the plaintiff owes to herself is to observe the obvious and apparent condition of the premises.” Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So. 2d 366, 368. The drain in question was not a concealed or latent danger, if danger it was. It was plainly visible and could have been seen by plaintiff if she had been looking, and she said that she wasn’t looking.
In these circumstances, we agree with the trial judge that there was no genuine issue of fact as to the liability of the bank to the plaintiff, and that it was not error to enter a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
McKEAN v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…n, 167 So. 2d 610 (Fla.App.2d 1964); Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So. 2d 768 (Fla.App.2d 1964) ; Dewar v. City of Miami, 93 So. 2d 58 (Fla.1957) ; Chambers v. Southern Wholesale, 92 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1956); Becksted v. Riverside Bank of Miami, 85 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1956); City of Palatka v. Woods, 78 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1955); Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So. 2d 477 (Fla.1952). We concur in the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s admissions herein reveal that she did not exercise that de…
-
Minerva Goldstein and her husband v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 142 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…71 So. 2d 500. Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 403. We think that the broken car stop in the instant case cannot be said to be as obvious as the grating covering a drain in Becksted v. Riverside Bank of Miami, Fla.1956, 85 So. 2d 130; or the telephone pole across a sidewalk in Jacobs v. Claughton, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 53. Both appellants and appellees have cited numerous instances as supporting their respective positions in which the obviousness of obstructions or defects was…
-
6345 Collins Ave., Inc. v. Murray A. Fein, 95 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1957)
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matson v. TIP TOP Grocery Co., Inc., 151 Fla. 247 (Fla. 1942)
- Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1952)
- In re Application of Marion E. Sibley to Resign from the Bar of the State of Fla., 151 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1942)