Business Invitee

158 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph

• United N.Y. & N.J. Sandy Hook Pilots Ass'n v. Halecki
  358 U.S. 613· U.S.· 1959-02-24 ·cited 379×
  The Court held that the decedent's work was not the type traditionally performed by seamen, thus the shipowner could not be held liable under the doctrine of unseaworthiness. However, the negligence claim presented a jury issue.
• Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Phoebe C. Trusell et vir
  131 So. 2d 730· Fla.· 1961-06-28 ·cited 167×
  Food Fair Stores petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a Court of Appeal decision in a slip-and-fall case. The Florida Supreme Court held that an employee's affidavit describing general practices regarding produce on store floors was inadmissible hearsay and did not provi
• Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. OF Fla.
  211 So. 3d 275· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-02-01 ·cited 64×
  Carmen Encarnación appealed a summary judgment dismissing her slip-and-fall negligence case against Palmetto General Hospital and its contract cleaning company. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Florida's transitory substance statute, the plaintiff failed to establ
• Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Ctr., Inc.
  160 So. 2d 132· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-01-23 ·cited 58×
  A 16-year-old girl was injured when she ran into a closed sliding glass door at a recreational facility, striking it with such force that it shattered. The jury found both parties negligent, but judgment was entered for the defendant. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded fo
• Commercial Credit Corp. v. Varn
  108 So. 2d 638· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-01-27 ·cited 50×
  The court held that there was a total absence of evidence to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, as the conclusion of negligence required impermissible inferences based upon inferences.
• United States v. Hull
  195 F.2d 64· 1st Cir.· 1952-03-19 ·cited 46×
  The United States can be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for an employee's negligent omission, even if the employee would not be personally liable for nonfeasance under state law.
• Skovgaard v. THE Vessel M/V Tungus
  252 F.2d 14· 3d Cir.· 1957-12-23 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act does not impose liability on a shipowner for unseaworthiness without negligence, nor does it impose a stricter duty than New Jersey tort law for providing a safe workplace when the dangerous condition is obvious and known to t
• Sunray Oil Corp. v. Allbritton
  187 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1951-02-15 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the appellant retained control over the derrick, was bound to exercise reasonable care, and that its failure to do so proximately caused the appellee's injuries.
• Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway
  358 So. 2d 123· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-05-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a homeowner's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee to create a duty to warn. The homeowner's knowledge of the wet driveway was not superior, and no danger was apparent.
• Anne M. Fouts v. Margules
  98 So. 2d 394· Fla. 3d DCA· 1957-11-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint with prejudice and denying leave to amend, as the allegations, while insufficient, did not preclude the existence of a cause of action.
• Rocamonde v. Marshalls OF MA, Inc.
  56 So. 3d 863· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-03-09 ·cited 33×
  Maria Rocamonde appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Marshalls after she tripped over a mobile clothing rack in the store. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the protruding base of the rack was open an
• Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Delta Miller
  402 F.2d 134· 8th Cir.· 1968-10-23 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to disclose relevant hospital records prejudiced the defendant, warranting a new trial, and that the trial court properly submitted the submissible case issue to the jury.
• Stewart v. Boho, Inc.
  493 So. 2d 95· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-09-10 ·cited 32×
  Earl Stewart appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence claim against a bar owner after he was injured falling through an entrance door while dancing. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the bar
• Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Inc.
  105 So. 2d 175· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-07-22 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causal connection between the hotel's alleged negligence in failing to supervise boisterous conduct and the plaintiff's injury.
• Cohn v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Orlando
  223 So. 2d 767· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-06-13 ·cited 30×
  Lucy Cohn sued Florida National Bank after slipping and falling on a wet parking lot sealed with asphalt sealer. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict on liability, and the appellate court affirmed the liability ruling but reversed and remanded the c
• U.S. Sec. Servs. Corp. v. Ramada INN, Inc.
  665 So. 2d 268· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-11-15 ·cited 29×
  A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) that absolved Ramada Inn of vicarious liability for a security company's negligence in failing to protect a business invitee from a criminal attack. The court held that even though the secu
• Schmidt v. Bowl Am. Fla., Inc.
  358 So. 2d 1385· Fla. 4th DCA· 1978-05-31 ·cited 28×
  The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the bowling alley because there were sufficient circumstances to allow a jury to determine if the bowling alley had constructive notice of the crayon on the floor.
• Magill v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  464 F.2d 294· 3d Cir.· 1972-07-14 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the jury's findings on liability were supported by sufficient evidence, but a new trial on damages was required due to the speculative nature of an earnings increase factor and an excessive survival action verdict.
• Smith v. Arbaugh's Rest., Inc.
  469 F.2d 97· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-30 ·cited 28×
  The court's majority decision, which the author concurs in the result of, may oversimplify the issues by framing the case as safety versus property exploitation.
• Moultrie v. Consol. Stores Int'l Corp.
  764 So. 2d 637· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-04-25 ·cited 24×
  Patricia Moultrie sued Big Lots Store for negligence after tripping on an empty wooden pallet left in a store aisle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the store based on the open and obvious danger doctrine, but the appellate court reversed, holding that material factu
• Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc.
  757 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 24×
  A village's motion for summary judgment was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with statutory notice requirements, but the dismissal of claims against the Floater's Association members was reversed, as their control over the river and adjacent property could establ
• Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  213 So. 3d 1129· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-04-04 ·cited 22×
  In this premises-liability case, the court affirmed summary judgment for a retailer when a customer tripped over an empty pallet he had previously observed while exiting the store. The court held that the retailer owed no duty to warn of the open and obvious condition and properl
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  403 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1968-11-01 ·cited 22×
  The court is reviewing antecedent litigation and insurance policies related to a prior incident, but the specific holding is not yet discernible from the provided text.
• Deryk McCAIN v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.
  110 So. 2d 718· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-04-07 ·cited 22×
  An eight-year-old boy was injured when he walked into a closed glass door at a model home. The defendant obtained summary judgment based on the theory that the child should have observed the transparent door. The appellate court reversed, holding that negligence is a jury questio
• Squitieri v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  382 So. 2d 730· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-03-19 ·cited 20×
  The appellate court reversed a summary final judgment in a personal injury case, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed that should not have been decided by summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
• Harvey v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  388 F.2d 123· 5th Cir.· 1968-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's assumption of risk, precluding summary judgment.
• Titan Steel Corp. v. Walton
  365 F.2d 542· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Rust breached its duty to the decedent by creating a dangerous condition and failing to warn, and that the indemnity provisions were enforceable under Utah law.
• Mesle v. KEA S.S. Corp.
  260 F.2d 747· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-30 ·cited 19×
  Recovery was affirmed on the ground of unseaworthiness, and the third-party complaint against the impleaded respondent was dismissed due to lack of evidence of responsibility.
• Ferguson v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  408 So. 2d 659· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-29 ·cited 18×
  Beverly Ferguson was injured when an elevator in a building owned by M.G. Investments abruptly stopped, throwing her to the floor. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, but the appellate court reversed, holding that res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies to elevator
• United States v. White
  211 F.2d 79· 9th Cir.· 1954-02-18 ·cited 18×
  The government's failure to warn a business invitee of known dangers on its property, or its affirmative misrepresentation of safety, does not fall under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Graham v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  240 So. 2d 157· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-10-21 ·cited 17×
  A customer injured when a suspected shoplifter fleeing from a grocery store knocked her down sued the store owner for negligence and nuisance. The court affirmed dismissal of her complaint, holding that a store owner owes business invitees only a duty of reasonable care, not an i
• Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
  454 So. 2d 1060· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-06-26 ·cited 16×
  Fernandez prevailed on a negligence claim against Miami Jai-Alai for inadequate security that resulted in his assault on the defendant's parking lot. The trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendants post-verdict, and the appellate court reversed and remanded with dir
• Whelan v. Dacoma Enters., Inc.
  394 So. 2d 506· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-02-18 ·cited 16×
  This case concerns a landlord's liability for criminal acts against a tenant by a third party. The appellate court reversed a dismissal, holding that a tenant's complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for negligence based on the landlord's alleged failure to provide adeq
• Woods v. Geifman Food Stores, Inc.
  311 F.2d 711· 7th Cir.· 1963-01-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the accident was not a foreseeable risk, and the defendant was not required to ameliorate the condition to satisfy its duty of care.
• Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Jeffery
  650 So. 2d 122· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-02-01 ·cited 15×
  Publix Super Markets appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for negligent failure to provide security in a shopping center parking lot where a customer was criminally assaulted. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under the controlling precedent of Federat
• Russ v. Int'l Paper Co.
  943 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not receive adequate notice that causation was an issue, thus the burden never shifted to him to support his theory.
• Fendrick v. Nedine Faeges
  117 So. 2d 858· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-02-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that issues of contributory negligence and proximate cause were questions of fact for the jury, and an excluded statement was inadmissible under statute.
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea
  455 So. 2d 1342· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-09-26 ·cited 14×
  Winn-Dixie sought a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order compelling production of recorded statements of eyewitnesses to a slip-and-fall incident. The court held that witness statements taken by an insurance adjuster constitute work product, and the opposing party faile
• Zrust v. Spencer Foods, Inc.
  667 F.2d 760· 8th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instruction regarding a landowner's duty to an invitee was consistent with Nebraska law, and that while an assumption of risk instruction should have been given, its omission was harmless error.
• Ball v. Ates
  369 So. 2d 1023· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-04-24 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed judgment for the defendant employer and insurer, holding that an employer has no duty to warn of ordinary risks that an employee knew about and encountered while performing regular work duties.
• Burgert v. Tietjens
  499 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of negligence based on poor water clarity, proximate cause, and the amount of damages were supported by substantial evidence and reasonable application of Kansas law.
• Sparks v. Ober
  216 So. 2d 483· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-12-10 ·cited 14×
  Plaintiff appealed from a directed verdict entered in favor of bar owners after plaintiff's case concluded, alleging the bartender-employee was negligent in failing to warn patrons or take protective action after hearing a patron threaten to get his gun and return. The court held
• Zieja v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  508 So. 2d 354· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-06-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient to overcome sovereign immunity due to a failure to allege business invitee status, the judgment should be affirmed with leave to amend.
• Kenrick David v. Pueblo Supermarket of ST. Thomas. Appeal of Pueblo Supermarkets of ST. Thomas, Inc.
  740 F.2d 230· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence and compensatory damages, there was insufficient evidence to support the award of punitive damages.
• Pfilip G. Hunt, Jr. v. Slippery DIP OF Jacksonville, Inc.
  453 So. 2d 139· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for a water slide operator in a negligence action, holding that the operator owed no duty to warn an 18-year-old invitee about the risks of jumping a wall on the slide where the invitee's knowledge of the danger was equal to the operator's and
• Allied Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Saling
  227 So. 2d 712· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-10-10 ·cited 12×
  A business invitee fell from an unrailed elevated platform at an auction house and sued for personal injuries. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict, holding that the plaintiff's injury resulted from his own forgetfulness of a known hazard rather than suff
• Becker v. Colonial Parking, Inc.
  409 F.2d 1130· D.C. Cir.· 1969-01-27 ·cited 12×
• Winsemann v. The Travelodge Corp.
  205 So. 2d 315· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-12-15 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court reviewed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, where the plaintiff, a business invitee, alleged negligence due to inadequate lighting and a dangerous curb design in a motel parking lot.
• The Jesters v. Taylor
  105 So. 2d 569· Fla.· 1958-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The court reviewed appeals from a verdict and judgment in favor of a minor struck by a golf ball while shagging balls on a country club's practice fairway, and his father, against the country club and the golfer who hit the ball.
• Swift & Co. v. Schuster
  192 F.2d 615· 10th Cir.· 1951-10-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff, an invitee, could not recover for injuries sustained from an obviously dangerous condition known to him.