Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd.
620 So. 2d 1096, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939, 1993 WL 230130
Opinion
The duty to maintain Terminal No. 6 in the Port of Miami does not fall upon Seaes-cape. Metropolitan Dade County owns, cleans, inspects and maintains Terminal No. 6. Moreover, Port of Miami employees inspect, repair, maintain, and clean the terminal. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Seaescape. See Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see generally, Corrales v. Spieler, 588 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd., 620 So. 2d 1096, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939, 1993 WL 230130 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).
620 So. 2d 1096 (Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Air Canada v. Smith
357 So. 2d 789 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Corrales v. Spieler
588 So. 2d 1057 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)