Rivard v. Grimm

621 So. 2d 580, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7886, 1993 WL 280463
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 28, 1993
DocketNo. 92-2444
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 621 So. 2d 580 (Rivard v. Grimm) 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
Rivard v. Grimm, 621 So. 2d 580, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7886, 1993 WL 280463 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of defendants/appellees.

Plaintiff/appellant tripped and fell over a parking bumper in the parking lot of the residential complex owned by defendants. The accident occurred at 3:00 A.M. while plaintiff was delivering newspapers to some of the tenants in the complex. The parking bumper in question was located adjacent to a sidewalk leading to the complex.

The facts and the record below reflect that although appellant had been making deliveries in the complex for about one year, he was not aware of the parking bumper where he tripped because a car was usually parked in that spot. There were also allegations that on the night in question, the light which normally illuminated this area of the complex was not working. While open and obvious conditions may negate the existence of negligence and permit a summary disposition, the added factor of the effect or impact, if any, of the lighting in the subject area on visibility gives rise to a genuine issue of [581]*581material fact — whether defendants were negligent in maintaining the lighting in the area where the accident occurred — whether there was any duty to maintain lighting in that area — whether irrespective of such lighting, there was sufficient illumination so as to preclude any negligence on the part of the defendants. See Bianchi v. Garber, 528 So.2d 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.1

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and MAGER, GERALD, Senior Judge, concur.

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

Related

Aaron v. Palatka Mall, LLC
908 So. 2d 574 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Javits v. RSMO Independence Management Consultants, Inc.
738 So. 2d 521 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
621 So. 2d 580, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7886, 1993 WL 280463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivard-v-grimm-fladistctapp-1993.