Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway

358 So. 2d 123
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 4, 1978
DocketGG-481
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 358 So. 2d 123 (Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway) 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
Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

358 So.2d 123 (1978)

VERMONT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, D. Frank Palmieri and Carmela Palmieri, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
Charles CONWAY, Appellee.

No. GG-481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 4, 1978.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1978.

Robert K. Rouse, Jr., of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

Paul R. Stern of Stern, LaRue & Wells, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were found by the jury below to be 15% negligent in an accident which occurred when appellee, a housepainter, fell off a ladder as he painted appellants' house. Appellants argue that the evidence was legally insufficient to be presented to the jury and that the court erred in not directing a verdict. We agree and reverse.

Appellee testified that Mrs. Palmieri, complaining about his untidiness, had hosed down the driveway two times in the morning *124 of the accident. He stated that he had moved the ladder a number of times as he worked around the north part of the house, and just before the fall had placed it on a wet part of the driveway surface. Plaintiff's expert testified that hosing down the driveway could have "reduced the coefficient of friction" to the point at which the ladder essentially lost its traction and gave way. The jury apparently believed that the hosing was at least in part responsible for the accident. Appellants argue that appellee admitted he saw Mrs. Palmieri hose the driveway and himself placed the ladder on the wet surface.

It is well settled that a defendant's knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of a business invitee in order to create a duty to warn of dangers unknown to the plaintiff. Somers v. Myers, 171 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). Here Mrs. Palmieri's knowledge of the wet driveway was no greater than that of the plaintiff's. Furthermore there was no showing that Mrs. Palmieri realized she was creating a danger to plaintiff by hosing the driveway down. In Harvey v. Bryant, 238 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), this court held that where there was no showing that a homeowner knew or should have known that placing a throw rug on a newly waxed floor created a dangerous condition, she was not liable for injuries caused when a guest fell on that rug. In short, there was no basis for holding defendants liable for plaintiff's injuries and the trial court should have directed a verdict in their favor.

REVERSED.

SMITH, Acting C.J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Thomas Brookie v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and The Lewis Bear Company
213 So. 3d 1129 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Arauz v. Truesdell
698 So. 2d 872 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Hildack v. Adventist Health Systems
673 So. 2d 579 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Keene v. Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.
596 So. 2d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Stewart v. Boho, Inc.
493 So. 2d 95 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Aguinsky v. Spring Lakes Village Condominium Ass'n
489 So. 2d 872 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Storr v. Proctor
490 So. 2d 135 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
McFadden v. Fiori
488 So. 2d 92 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Rios v. Junco
487 So. 2d 331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Emmons v. Baptist Hosp.
478 So. 2d 440 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Hunt v. Slippery Dip of Jacksonville, Inc.
453 So. 2d 139 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Zipkin v. Rubin Const. Co.
418 So. 2d 1040 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Cassel v. Price
396 So. 2d 258 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Alegre v. Shurkey
396 So. 2d 247 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Grenier v. Central Bank & Trust Co.
391 So. 2d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Hernandez v. Kimzay of Florida, Inc.
385 So. 2d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Guerrero v. Kelly
384 So. 2d 228 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Metropolitan Dade County v. Yelvington
392 So. 2d 911 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Pittman v. Volusia County
380 So. 2d 1192 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Ball v. Ates
369 So. 2d 1023 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
358 So. 2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vermont-mut-ins-co-v-conway-fladistctapp-1978.