Dale v. ITT Sheraton Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dale v. ITT Sheraton Corp.

611 So. 2d 594, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1993 WL 2953

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1993

DocketNo. 91-03640

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 So. 2d 594 (Dale v. ITT Sheraton Corp.) 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

Dale v. ITT Sheraton Corp., 611 So. 2d 594, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1993 WL 2953 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

Virginia and George Dale sued ITT Sheraton Corporation for personal injuries Virginia allegedly suffered after a slip and fall while on the Sheraton’s premises. The trial court granted Sheraton’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in its favor. We reverse.

There was a genuine issue of fact in this case sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). Jeanne Conner, an eyewitness, stated in her affidavit that she saw Virginia slip and fall in the hotel lobby. Conner retrieved the flower petal on which Virginia had stepped at the moment she fell. Conner noticed several other flower petals of the same type scattered nearby. Virginia testified in her deposition that the petal retrieved by Conner was “bruised,” supposedly by her shoe. Under these circumstances, we think there was a question of fact, i.e., whether Sheraton was on constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused Virginia’s injuries. See, e.g., Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 534 So.2d 402 (Fla.1988).

We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

Virginia and George Dale sued ITT Sheraton Corporation for personal injuries Virginia allegedly suffered after a slip and fall while on the Sheraton’s premises. The trial court granted Sheraton’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in its favor. We reverse.

There was a genuine issue of fact in this case sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). Jeanne Conner, an eyewitness, stated in her affidavit that she saw Virginia slip and fall in the hotel lobby. Conner retrieved the flower petal on which Virginia had stepped at the moment she fell. Conner noticed several other flower petals of the same type scattered nearby. Virginia testified in her deposition that the petal retrieved by Conner was “bruised,” supposedly by her shoe. Under these circumstances, we think there was a question of fact, i.e., whether Sheraton was on constructive notice of the condition alleged to have caused Virginia’s injuries. See, e.g., Teate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 524 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 534 So.2d 402 (Fla.1988).

We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 So. 2d 594, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 20, 1993 WL 2953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dale-v-itt-sheraton-corp-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack