Becksted v. Riverside Bank of Miami
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- James J. Dvorak v. Holiday Inns of America, Inc. (5th Cir. 1970)
- 6345 Collins Avenue, Inc. v. Fein (Fla. 1957)
- St. Vincent's Hospital, Incorporated v. Crouch (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)
- Brown v. McArthur Dairies, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
- Clemente v. Tundidor (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)
- Luckey v. City of Orlando (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
- Aaron v. Logro Corp. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
- Byrnes v. Kirkeby Hotels, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)
- McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965)
- Parmet v. Chambers (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
- Crawford v. Soennichsen (Neb. 1963)
- Kuhn v. Biscayne Cafeteria, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
- Shirey v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1963)
- Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
- Riles v. Hege (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)
- Stone v. Hotel Seville, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
- Wallace v. Boca Raton Properties, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
- Cooney v. Panama City (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1958)
- Dewar v. City of Miami (Fla. 1957)
- Anderson v. Yunick (Fla. 1956)
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
Florence M. BECKSTED, Appellant,
v.
RIVERSIDE BANK OF MIAMI, a banking Institution organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.
Olavi M. Hendrickson, Miami, for appellant.
Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford & Williams and Reginald L. Williams, Miami, for appellee.
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellant, plaintiff below, was injured when she stepped on a grating covering a drain in a parking lot maintained by the defendant bank, appellee here, for its customers, and sued the bank for damages for its alleged negligence in maintaining the drain. The deposition of the plaintiff was taken and, on the basis of such deposition and exhibits filed by defendant, the trial judge entered a summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.
Some discussion is had here of the question of whether the plaintiff was a business visitor of the bank or a mere licensee; but we think a decision of that question is unnecessary. Even if it be assumed that plaintiff was a business invitee on the bank's parking lot, it was nonetheless her duty to see that which would be obvious to her upon the ordinary use of her senses and to exercise a reasonable degree of care for her own safety. Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 1953, Fla., 63 So.2d 769, 772. "* * * The duty which the plaintiff owes to herself is to observe the obvious and apparent condition of the premises." Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366, 368. The drain in question was not a concealed or latent danger, if danger it was. It was plainly visible and could have been seen by plaintiff if she had been looking, and she said that she wasn't looking.
In these circumstances, we agree with the trial judge that there was no genuine issue of fact as to the liability of the bank to the plaintiff, and that it was not error to enter a summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
Affirmed.
DREW, C.J., and THOMAS and O'CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.