Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc.
1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11159, 645 So.2d 565 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A violation of a building code designed to protect the general public constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, and questions of causation in negligence actions are typically reserved for the jury, making summary judgment improper where any doubt as to a material fact exists.
Facts:
- On September 22, 1990, Joanette Lindsey went to a Western Union office operated by Bill Arflin Bonding Agency, Inc. in a building owned by Barry and Eunice Zisser.
- To enter the building, Lindsey ascended a flight of three steps which did not have a handrail.
- Lindsey remained inside the office for no more than twenty minutes.
- While exiting the building, Lindsey slipped on a wet spot on the landing at the top of the steps.
- As a result of the slip, she fell down the steps to street level.
- Lindsey suffered a fractured ankle from the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Joanette and Robert Lindsey filed a negligence lawsuit against Bill Arflin Bonding Agency, Inc. and Barry and Eunice Zisser in a Florida trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the absence of a handrail was not the legal cause of the injuries.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The Lindseys, as appellants, appealed the final summary judgment to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- Bill Arflin Bonding Agency, Inc. and the Zissers are the appellees in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding causation and breach of duty, precluding summary judgment, when a business invitee slips on a wet spot and falls down steps that lack a handrail allegedly required by the building code in effect at the time of construction?
Opinions:
Majority - Benton, Judge
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the questions of when the plaintiff's ankle was fractured and whether the absence of a handrail contributed to her fall and injuries are disputed factual issues for a jury to decide. The court reasoned that summary judgment is improper if the record raises even the slightest doubt about a material fact, particularly in negligence actions. The plaintiff's deposition testimony did not conclusively establish that her ankle broke on the landing before she fell down the steps; a jury could reasonably infer the fracture occurred during the fall itself, which a handrail might have prevented. Furthermore, the court determined that the building code in effect when the building was constructed in 1974, which required a handrail for stairs with two or more risers, applied to the steps in question. A violation of such a public safety ordinance is prima facie evidence of negligence, which a jury must be allowed to consider in determining whether the defendants breached their duty of care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high threshold for granting summary judgment in negligence cases, especially concerning the element of causation. It solidifies the principle that factual determinations, such as the sequence of events leading to an injury, are within the exclusive province of the jury. The case also clarifies the legal weight of a building code violation in Florida, establishing it as strong evidence of negligence rather than negligence per se. This holding means property owners cannot escape potential liability by arguing a code is outdated or has been superseded; compliance is measured against the standards in effect at the time of construction, and failure to meet those standards can support a claim for breach of duty.
Unlock the full brief for Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency Inc.