McCallum ex rel. McCallum v. Brodsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCallum ex rel. McCallum v. Brodsky

158 So. 2d 589

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1963

DocketNo. 3882

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 So. 2d 589 (McCallum ex rel. McCallum v. Brodsky) 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

McCallum ex rel. McCallum v. Brodsky, 158 So. 2d 589 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The complaint charged the defendants with the negligent use of a door, in that, while a minor, who with his parents were guests at defendants’ motel, was entering the door the same closed upon his fingers with great force because of a gust of wind. There was no door stop on the door, which opened out, the only device attached to it being a chain which was fastened to the inside top of the door which prevented it from striking the exterior wall of the building. The complaint was dismissed upon motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. See Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co., 26 R.I. 198, 58 A. 655; Ten Broeck v. Deinhardt, 120 App. Div. 473, 105 N.Y.S. 59; Jacob v. City of Pittsburgh, 330 Pa. 587, 198 A. 639; Sockwell v. Lucas & Jenkins Inc., 71 Ga.App. 765, 32 S.E.2d 201; Buzzell v. R. H. White Co., 220 Mass. 129, 107 N.E. 385; 16 A.L.R.2d 1161.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., SHANNON, J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The complaint charged the defendants with the negligent use of a door, in that, while a minor, who with his parents were guests at defendants’ motel, was entering the door the same closed upon his fingers with great force because of a gust of wind. There was no door stop on the door, which opened out, the only device attached to it being a chain which was fastened to the inside top of the door which prevented it from striking the exterior wall of the building. The complaint was dismissed upon motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. See Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co., 26 R.I. 198, 58 A. 655; Ten Broeck v. Deinhardt, 120 App. Div. 473, 105 N.Y.S. 59; Jacob v. City of Pittsburgh, 330 Pa. 587, 198 A. 639; Sockwell v. Lucas & Jenkins Inc., 71 Ga.App. 765, 32 S.E.2d 201; Buzzell v. R. H. White Co., 220 Mass. 129, 107 N.E. 385; 16 A.L.R.2d 1161.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., SHANNON, J., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 2d 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccallum-ex-rel-mccallum-v-brodsky-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack