Evans v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

303 So. 2d 682, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8361
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 6, 1974·No. No. 74-10·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon examination of the record on appeal and upon consideration of the briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that a genuine triable issue of material fact exists with respect to the nature of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Luckey v. City of Orlando, Fla. App.1972, 264 So.2d 99; cf. Aaron v. Logro Corp., Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 8. A valid distinction can be drawn between a bumper strip in a parking lot which an invitee can be reasonably expected to anticipate as in Aaron, supra, and the placing of bumper strips at the curb area immediately outside defendant’s store (to prevent curb[683]*683side parking) which an invitee might not be reasonably expected to encounter. Under the facts in the instant case a jury question was presented. 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence, sec. 129.

Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MA-GER, JJ., concur.

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

Evans v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 303 So. 2d 682, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8361 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

303 So. 2d 682 (Evans v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ricciardelli v. Florida Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
564 So. 2d 620 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Ackerman v. Florida Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
537 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)