Chisolm v. R & R Auto Parts, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chisolm v. R & R Auto Parts, Inc.

422 So. 2d 1010, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21686

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 24, 1982·No. No. AJ-173·Published

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

This summary judgment for defendant is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s step or misstep, upon exiting defendant’s store through the door she previously entered, is not shown by any evidence or inference to have been caused by some structural defect or irregularity of which defendant was reasonably required to give some special notice. Plaintiff conceivably was slightly and momentarily distracted as she left the store, but defendant had no duty, under the circumstances shown here, to anticipate and prevent that. Contrast Spence v. Pen Air Federal Credit Union, 421 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

This summary judgment for defendant is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s step or misstep, upon exiting defendant’s store through the door she previously entered, is not shown by any evidence or inference to have been caused by some structural defect or irregularity of which defendant was reasonably required to give some special notice. Plaintiff conceivably was slightly and momentarily distracted as she left the store, but defendant had no duty, under the circumstances shown here, to anticipate and prevent that. Contrast Spence v. Pen Air Federal Credit Union, 421 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Chisolm v. R & R Auto Parts, Inc., 422 So. 2d 1010, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21686 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

422 So. 2d 1010 (Chisolm v. R & R Auto Parts, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related