Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 So. 2d 492

Pettigrew v. Nite-Cap

PETTIGREW et al. v. NITE-CAP, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided February 27, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1953.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1953-02-27

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The handle, knobs and metal strip on the door were plainly visible and the door was located at the place a door would naturally be expected. It is clear to us that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was her failure to see that which, by the exercise of reasonable care, she should have seen."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 110 So. 2d 718 - McCain v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 160 So. 2d 132 - Isenberg v. Ortona Park Recreational Center, Inc.

Relies on Rosenberg v. Hartman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-02-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1970

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

100195319601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Francis K. Buckley and Miller & Miller, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

¶2Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

¶3DREW, Justice.

¶4About eleven o'clock in the evening appellant Jennie R. Pettigrew was injured when she walked into a large plate glass door at the entrance of appellee's restaurant. She alleged the lighting inside the premises and the clear colorless glass door, void of markings or handles or other visible objects thereon, rendered the door invisible to such an extent that she did not see it and that the maintenance of such door in the condition described constituted negligence, and that such negligence was the cause of appellant's injury.

¶5Appellant's testimony showed that the door was of clear glass but that there was a wide metal strip on the top and bottom of the door and a lucite handle located in the usual place on the door with black knobs at the top and bottom to hold it in place.

¶6At the close of appellant's case the lower court directed a verdict for the appellee, final judgment was entered and this appeal followed.

¶7*493 The handle, knobs and metal strip on the door were plainly visible and the door was located at the place a door would naturally be expected. It is clear to us that the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was her failure to see that which, by the exercise of reasonable care, she should have seen. See Rosenberg v. Hartman, 313 Mass. 54, 46 N.E.2d 406.

¶8Affirmed.

¶9HOBSON, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

/63/so2d/492 · .json · Public domain