Taylor v. Piggly Wiggly Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. Piggly Wiggly Corp.

646 So. 2d 817, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11939, 1994 WL 681905

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1994

DocketNo. 93-2235

StatusPublished

This text of 646 So. 2d 817 (Taylor v. Piggly Wiggly 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

Taylor v. Piggly Wiggly Corp., 646 So. 2d 817, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11939, 1994 WL 681905 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellants, James and Kimberly Taylor, the plaintiffs in this premises liability action, contend that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, because genuine issues of fact remain regarding whether the defendants used reasonable care in maintaining their premises. We agree and reverse and remand.

An owner or occupier of business premises owes a duty to its invitees to repair or warn of latent or concealed perils it knows of or should know of by the exercise of due care. Welch v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965). Appellants’ expert stated in an affidavit that it is very probable that periodic inspection of the building would have put the owner or occupier on notice of the impending failure of the wall and awning, which collapsed, injuring Mr. Taylor. It is undisputed that none of the appellees conducted inspections of the building’s roof and exterior.

Whether the defendants’ duty of exercising reasonable care to maintain and inspect the premises extended to inspecting the awning at issue, and whether the defect would have been discoverable upon inspection, are questions of fact for the jury. See, e.g., Cain v. Brown, 569 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Kala Invs., Inc. v. Sklar, 538 So.2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989). The trial court erred in resolving these disputed issues of fact based upon the record before us.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

Appellants, James and Kimberly Taylor, the plaintiffs in this premises liability action, contend that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, because genuine issues of fact remain regarding whether the defendants used reasonable care in maintaining their premises. We agree and reverse and remand.

An owner or occupier of business premises owes a duty to its invitees to repair or warn of latent or concealed perils it knows of or should know of by the exercise of due care. Welch v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); 2 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965). Appellants’ expert stated in an affidavit that it is very probable that periodic inspection of the building would have put the owner or occupier on notice of the impending failure of the wall and awning, which collapsed, injuring Mr. Taylor. It is undisputed that none of the appellees conducted inspections of the building’s roof and exterior.

Whether the defendants’ duty of exercising reasonable care to maintain and inspect the premises extended to inspecting the awning at issue, and whether the defect would have been discoverable upon inspection, are questions of fact for the jury. See, e.g., Cain v. Brown, 569 So.2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Kala Invs., Inc. v. Sklar, 538 So.2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989). The trial court erred in resolving these disputed issues of fact based upon the record before us.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 So. 2d 817, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11939, 1994 WL 681905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-piggly-wiggly-corp-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack