Torts — Premises liability — Business invitee — Action arising out of plaintiff tripping over raised manhole cover and sustaining head trauma on defendant’s property — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant — Dangerousness of manhole remained an issue of fact that was not conclusively determined where plaintiff’s experts supported claim that manhole was dangerous because the manhole was raised and elevated higher than permitted by code, and the excessive elevation rendered it a fall hazard — Defendant’s evidence showing compliance with building codes is not conclusive on the issue of whether defendant maintained a dangerous condition on the premises — Defendant failed to establish whether manhole presented an open and obvious danger where plaintiff was elderly, incident occurred at night, the lighting was poor, the manhole was in a travel lane in front of the store, store was busy, and cars were coming and going with their headlights on — Whether customers heading to their vehicles should have expected to sidestep a raised manhole in every instance, or whether the store should have anticipated that its customers were likely to trip over the manhole despite its obviousness is a disputed issue of fact
44 Fla. L. Weekly D765a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index