Berman v. Weberman Caterers, Inc.

647 So. 2d 1068, 1994 WL 715212
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 28, 1994
Docket93-2616
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 647 So. 2d 1068 (Berman v. Weberman Caterers, Inc.) 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
Berman v. Weberman Caterers, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1068, 1994 WL 715212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

647 So.2d 1068 (1994)

Vivian BERMAN, Appellant,
v.
WEBERMAN CATERERS, INC. a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 93-2616.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 28, 1994.

Magill & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Miami, for appellant.

Kelley & Thompson and James C. Kelley, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse summary judgment. Berman attended a party at a banquet facility operated by Weberman. While dancing, Berman's high heel shoe became caught in a hole in the dance floor. The dance floor surface was made of parquet wood and one strip of wood was missing from one of the parquet squares. Berman brought suit against Weberman alleging that Weberman had a duty to maintain the premises; that Berman had tripped and fallen because of the dangerous condition of the dance floor; and, that Weberman knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the dance floor. During discovery Weberman admitted that from time to time it had to replace some of the parquet squares on the dance floor. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant. We reverse.

An owner or possessor of land owes a business invitee two duties: 1. to warn of concealed dangers of which the owner or possessor is or, through the exercise of due care, should be aware of but which an invitee can not uncover through the use of due care, and 2. to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. See and compare Levy v. Home Depot, 518 So.2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In light of Weberman's admission that from time to time it had to replace parquet squares on the dance floor we hold that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Weberman provided a facility which was reasonably safe for its intended purposes. See and compare Kitsopoulos v. Mathers Bridge Restaurant, Inc., 627 So.2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

Summary judgment reversed.

Reversed.

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

Related

Smith v. Dade Co./Seaport Dept.
785 So. 2d 1250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Everett v. Restaurant and Catering Corp.
738 So. 2d 1015 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Barrio v. City of Miami
698 So. 2d 1241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
647 So. 2d 1068, 1994 WL 715212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-weberman-caterers-inc-fladistctapp-1994.