Roth v. Flom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roth v. Flom

105 So. 2d 179

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1958

DocketNo. 57-427

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 105 So. 2d 179 (Roth v. Flom) 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

Roth v. Flom, 105 So. 2d 179 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment for the defendant. The cause came on before the trial judge upon motions for summary judgment filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The cause was at issue and there were on file depositions of the plaintiff and the defendant and an affidavit of the plaintiff. In addition certain photographs were introduced and used by agreement of the parties. The trial judge correctly determined that there was no issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

It is concluded that the plaintiff in this case was on the premises of the defendant’s apartment building for the purpose of visiting a friend who was a tenant of the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff, in her relationship with the defendant, was a licensee upon the premises. See Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185.

The uncontroverted facts before the court revealed that the plaintiff struck her toe against a rising portion of sidewalk and fell. The rise or lip was occasioned by a settlement of one edge of the sidewalk at a joint. These facts established that the slight change in level was not such as to involve an unreasonable risk to the licensee. Cf. Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 653.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.

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

PEARSON, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a summary final judgment for the defendant. The cause came on before the trial judge upon motions for summary judgment filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The cause was at issue and there were on file depositions of the plaintiff and the defendant and an affidavit of the plaintiff. In addition certain photographs were introduced and used by agreement of the parties. The trial judge correctly determined that there was no issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

It is concluded that the plaintiff in this case was on the premises of the defendant’s apartment building for the purpose of visiting a friend who was a tenant of the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff, in her relationship with the defendant, was a licensee upon the premises. See Goldberg v. Straus, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 883; McNulty v. Hurley, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 185.

The uncontroverted facts before the court revealed that the plaintiff struck her toe against a rising portion of sidewalk and fell. The rise or lip was occasioned by a settlement of one edge of the sidewalk at a joint. These facts established that the slight change in level was not such as to involve an unreasonable risk to the licensee. Cf. Stewart v. Texas Co., Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 653.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-flom-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack