Amador v. Tolin

290 So. 2d 564, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8042
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 11, 1974
DocketNo. 73-594
StatusPublished

This text of 290 So. 2d 564 (Amador v. Tolin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amador v. Tolin, 290 So. 2d 564, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8042 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in the trial court suffered an adverse directed verdict in a negligence action against the owner and lessor of certain leased premises. The injury occurred as a result of the tenant making certain alterations in an exterior wall on the im[565]*565provement contained, on the demised premises. This alteration was done in order that the tenant could run an extension cord from an electrical outlet to a truck parked outside, which cord ran outside the building along the ground, through water standing as a result of the tenant washing his vehicles. This condition resulted in the plaintiff receiving an electrical shock when he touched a truck belonging to the tenant, parked on the demised premises adjacent to the building thereon.

The record failed to demonstrate that the condition existed at the time of the execution of the lease; that the lessor had been notified, as required by the lease, to make repairs; or that the lessor had undertaken to make any repairs.1 And, further, the record failed to show that the lessor was responsible for the general conditions of the premises, which were a contributing cause of the injury. Therefore, the action of the trial judge should be sustained. The following is found in Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 115:

******
“Plaintiff has failed to prove either notice to the landlord or circumstances out of which notice might be implied. * * * Therefore, in the absence of notice to the landlord, or a request to repair, the trial judge was correct in his announced intention to direct a verdict for the defendants-landlords.”
******

The other points urged for reversal have been examined and found to be without merit.

Therefore, the final judgment based upon the directed verdict be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
142 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
290 So. 2d 564, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-v-tolin-fladistctapp-1974.