Hall v. Facet Properties, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hall v. Facet Properties, Inc.

505 So. 2d 651, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1063, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7696

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1850

StatusPublished

This text of 505 So. 2d 651 (Hall v. Facet Properties, Inc.) 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

Hall v. Facet Properties, Inc., 505 So. 2d 651, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1063, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7696 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

This is a personal injury suit against a property owner by an employee of a tree trimmer who had contracted with the property owner to trim the tree in which plaintiff was injured. Notwithstanding the well-presented arguments on behalf of appellant, we affirm the summary judgment for the property owner.

We agree with the trial court that no material issue of fact existed as to whether the property owner assumed control of the work or committed an act of negligence. See Crawford v. Florida Steel Corp., 478 So.2d 855, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Nor, [652]*652even if, as plaintiff argues, the work was inherently dangerous, which we need not decide, do we conclude that the doctrine of inherently dangerous work imposes liability on the property owner under the circumstances of this case. See Pearson v. Harris, 449 So.2d 339, 343-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

This is a personal injury suit against a property owner by an employee of a tree trimmer who had contracted with the property owner to trim the tree in which plaintiff was injured. Notwithstanding the well-presented arguments on behalf of appellant, we affirm the summary judgment for the property owner.

We agree with the trial court that no material issue of fact existed as to whether the property owner assumed control of the work or committed an act of negligence. See Crawford v. Florida Steel Corp., 478 So.2d 855, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Nor, [652]*652even if, as plaintiff argues, the work was inherently dangerous, which we need not decide, do we conclude that the doctrine of inherently dangerous work imposes liability on the property owner under the circumstances of this case. See Pearson v. Harris, 449 So.2d 339, 343-44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 651, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1063, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-facet-properties-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack