Orpe v. Carnival Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orpe v. Carnival Corp.

777 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 2001 WL 120552

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-1204

StatusPublished

This text of 777 So. 2d 1151 (Orpe v. Carnival 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

Orpe v. Carnival Corp., 777 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 2001 WL 120552 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Colin Orpe (“Orpe”), brought this action against the appellee, Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) for an injury he sustained when the bathroom door of his cabin swung shut and severed his finger. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carnival on the grounds that Carnival did not have notice that the door latch was defective prior to the accident. Orpe argues that the trial court erred because the record gives rise to material issues of fact as to Carnival’s constructive notice of any alleged defect in the latch. Because we agree that the record does demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, we reverse. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Colon v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., 721 So.2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Colin Orpe (“Orpe”), brought this action against the appellee, Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) for an injury he sustained when the bathroom door of his cabin swung shut and severed his finger. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carnival on the grounds that Carnival did not have notice that the door latch was defective prior to the accident. Orpe argues that the trial court erred because the record gives rise to material issues of fact as to Carnival’s constructive notice of any alleged defect in the latch. Because we agree that the record does demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, we reverse. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Colon v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc., 721 So.2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 So. 2d 1151, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1306, 2001 WL 120552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orpe-v-carnival-corp-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack