Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd.
Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd.
620 So. 2d 1096; 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939; 1993 WL 230130
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Proudfoot v. Seaescape Ltd.
Opinion of the Court
The duty to maintain Terminal No. 6 in the Port of Miami does not fall upon Seaes-cape. Metropolitan Dade County owns, cleans, inspects and maintains Terminal No. 6. Moreover, Port of Miami employees inspect, repair, maintain, and clean the terminal. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Seaescape. See Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see generally, Corrales v. Spieler, 588 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.