Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
- Maury v. City Stores Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
- Berman v. Dade County (Dade County Court of Record 1960)
- Bethel v. Dade County (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court 1960)
- Durden v. Dranetz (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
- Charles H. Goldman v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Company (5th Cir. 1957)
- Ruth M. Sagesser and Walter C. Sagesser v. Sears, Roebuck & Company (5th Cir. 1956)
- First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wylie (Fla. 1950)
- Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Company, Inc. (Fla. 1942)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
From final judgment adverse to plaintiff we consider the sufficiency of the declaration to state a cause of action. The plaintiff, an invitee, charges the defendant “did not then and there furnish the plaintiff with a safe floor on and over which to pass . . .” The declaration is defective.
This case was before this Court once before where it was said (Nettie Moulden v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company, 143 Fla. 344, 196 So. 688) :
*37 “If the owner of the building had been the insurer of the safety of the plaintiff as an invitee on its premises, there might be substance to this contention
The law is well settled that the owner of a building is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees. The duty owed to plaintiff by defendant was the exercise of a reasonable degree of care commensurate with the attending circumstances for the plaintiff’s safety. Southern Express Company v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433; Christopher Company v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, 58 So. 45; Turlington v. Tampa Electric Company, 62 Fla. 398, 56 So. 696.
To charge the defendant with actionable negligence it must be shown that the defendant failed and neglected to fulfill that duty. To charge the defendant with failure to furnish a safe floor is to require a higher degree of care than the law recognizes. Such requirement would make the defendant a,n insurer.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.