Brogdon v. Brown

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brogdon v. Brown

505 So. 2d 19, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 944, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2760

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 505 So. 2d 19 (Brogdon v. Brown) 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

Brogdon v. Brown, 505 So. 2d 19, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 944, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alvin Brogdon was injured in a fall into an unguarded stairwell while working on appellee Brown’s construction site. The Brogdons’ negligence action resulted in the entry of final judgment for defendants/appellees pursuant to a jury verdict which found Brown not negligent in providing Brogdon a safe place to work.

Appellants contend that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of sections 3317 and 3312 of The South Florida Building Code¹ was negligence per se.

We hold that the trial court properly declined to give the negligence per se instruction because the code that was violated was enacted for the protection of the general public, not for the protection of a particular class of persons, therefore such violation was only evidence of negligence and not negligence per se. See Cadillac Fairview of Florida, Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla.1985); Grand Union Co. v. Rocker, 454 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schulte v. Gold, 360 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1979). The jury was properly instructed to consider the code violations as evidence of negligence.

In view of our holding, we decline to address the point raised on cross-appeal, which has been rendered moot.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Alvin Brogdon was injured in a fall into an unguarded stairwell while working on appellee Brown’s construction site. The Brogdons’ negligence action resulted in the entry of final judgment for defendants/appellees pursuant to a jury verdict which found Brown not negligent in providing Brogdon a safe place to work.

Appellants contend that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury that a violation of sections 3317 and 3312 of The South Florida Building Code¹ was negligence per se.

We hold that the trial court properly declined to give the negligence per se instruction because the code that was violated was enacted for the protection of the general public, not for the protection of a particular class of persons, therefore such violation was only evidence of negligence and not negligence per se. See Cadillac Fairview of Florida, Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So.2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So.2d 117 (Fla.1985); Grand Union Co. v. Rocker, 454 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schulte v. Gold, 360 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1367 (Fla.1979). The jury was properly instructed to consider the code violations as evidence of negligence.

In view of our holding, we decline to address the point raised on cross-appeal, which has been rendered moot.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 19, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 944, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brogdon-v-brown-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack