Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling

104 So. 2d 120, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2951

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1958

DocketNo. 57-170

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 104 So. 2d 120 (Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling) 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

Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2951 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee-wife was a guest in appellant’s hotel. While traversing the lobby of the hotel, she allegedly tripped, fell and sustained injuries. The injuries, she alleged, were occasioned by appellant’s negligent installation and maintenance of a rug or carpeting covering the floor in the lobby. The appellant denied the material allegations of negligence and affirmatively charged the appellee-wife with contributory negligence as the proximate cause of her injury. Upon the issues made by the pleadings, the cause was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict favorable to the appellee-wife. Judgment was entered on the verdict and this appeal has been taken from the judgment.

The appellant urges five points upon which it relies for a reversal of the judgment. We have carefully considered each of these points and conclude that they do not constitute error of such substantial character as would warrant a reversal. A consideration of the entire record of the trial proceedings below does not convince us that the errors, if any, were so prejudicial as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See § 54.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee-wife was a guest in appellant’s hotel. While traversing the lobby of the hotel, she allegedly tripped, fell and sustained injuries. The injuries, she alleged, were occasioned by appellant’s negligent installation and maintenance of a rug or carpeting covering the floor in the lobby. The appellant denied the material allegations of negligence and affirmatively charged the appellee-wife with contributory negligence as the proximate cause of her injury. Upon the issues made by the pleadings, the cause was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict favorable to the appellee-wife. Judgment was entered on the verdict and this appeal has been taken from the judgment.

The appellant urges five points upon which it relies for a reversal of the judgment. We have carefully considered each of these points and conclude that they do not constitute error of such substantial character as would warrant a reversal. A consideration of the entire record of the trial proceedings below does not convince us that the errors, if any, were so prejudicial as to have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See § 54.23, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 2d 120, 1958 Fla. App. LEXIS 2951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-hotel-owners-inc-v-sperling-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack