Gomez v. Plasencia

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gomez v. Plasencia

522 So. 2d 423, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 558, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 709, 1988 WL 15461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 1988

DocketNo. 87-860

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 423 (Gomez v. Plasencia) 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

Gomez v. Plasencia, 522 So. 2d 423, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 558, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 709, 1988 WL 15461 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Despite the appellant’s valiant and articulate effort to distinguish Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983), from the instant case, we conclude that Schoen fully supports the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in this negligence action. We accordingly affirm.

It is unnecessary, in our view, to burden this opinion with an extensive legal analysis why we have reached this result, but suffice it to say the record affirmatively establishes that the plaintiff fell and was injured solely because she did not notice the difference in floor levels of a model home she was inspecting as an invitee. She was in no sense negligently “distracted” by the plants and decorations in the home or the greeting of the salesperson in the home prior to her fall so as to not notice the change in the floor levels. Moreover, there can be no negligence in the placement of a “warning” sign in the home, as urged, because there was no dangerous condition to warn against; also there was no negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff after her fall. This being so, it is our view that Schoen directly controls the instant case and requires the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendants herein.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Despite the appellant’s valiant and articulate effort to distinguish Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla.1983), from the instant case, we conclude that Schoen fully supports the final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in this negligence action. We accordingly affirm.

It is unnecessary, in our view, to burden this opinion with an extensive legal analysis why we have reached this result, but suffice it to say the record affirmatively establishes that the plaintiff fell and was injured solely because she did not notice the difference in floor levels of a model home she was inspecting as an invitee. She was in no sense negligently “distracted” by the plants and decorations in the home or the greeting of the salesperson in the home prior to her fall so as to not notice the change in the floor levels. Moreover, there can be no negligence in the placement of a “warning” sign in the home, as urged, because there was no dangerous condition to warn against; also there was no negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff after her fall. This being so, it is our view that Schoen directly controls the instant case and requires the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendants herein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 423, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 558, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 709, 1988 WL 15461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-plasencia-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack