Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 So. 2d 230

Fields v. Quillian

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 25, 1954.

Rehearing Denied August 31, 1954.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1954-06-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When undisputed facts show that there was no negligence on part of defendant, or that negligence of plaintiff appreciably caused accident or was sole proximate cause of accident, there is nothing to submit to jury.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 110 So. 2d 417 - Nielsen v. City of Sarasota

Relies on Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Company, Inc. · 61 So. 2d 477 - Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando · G. Ferlita & Sons, Inc. v. Beck

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 1980 · most notably 41 Ala. App. 85 - Lindsay v. State (1960), 361 So. 2d 1182 - Tyson v. State (1978)

26 state decisions

901954196019701980decided

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 →

¶1Millard B. Conklin, Adams & Judge, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

¶2Alfred A. Green, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

¶3MATHEWS, Justice.

¶4This is an appeal from a final summary judgment denying damages for personal injuries.

¶5It appears from the record that appellant went to a building in the early stages of construction to see a man by the name of Hugo Quillian. There was nothing for him to see but the steel skeleton of the three-story building with Quillian on the roof superintending his crew at work. Appellant had no knowledge about the condition of the roof or the stage of construction but he accepted the waving of the hands of Quillian as to what he understood to be an invitation to come to the top of the building. When he reached the roof, men were working on the East side end to cover it and about 25% was covered with fresh cement, about 35% with a black paper material of unknown strength, and the remaining 40% was steel framework. No one was standing *231 or walking on the black paper and there was nothing to indicate that anyone had walked over it or that it was safe to be walked upon. There were ropes and barricades around the building but appellant made no inquiry and sought no permission to go to the top of the building except what he considered to be an invitation from Quillian by the waving of arms and hands. When he got to the top of the building he did not know that Quillian was unaware that appellant had reached the roof but he observed Quillian at work on the North side of the roof and he made no attempt to communicate with Quillian or make his presence known. He had no knowledge or experience in such a situation and did not inquire or ascertain from anyone whether it was safe or advisable for him to step upon and walk across the black paper covering he saw in front of him. He saw boards spread about on the roof and he lowered himself from the parapet wall to the roof and started across it to see Quillian. He weighed 178 pounds. The black covering would not support his weight. He could have ascertained this fact by inquiry which he failed to make. He fell through to the girder or steel joist of the second floor.

¶6When the undisputed facts show that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant or that the negligence of the plaintiff appreciably caused the accident or was the sole proximate cause of the accident, there is nothing to submit to the jury. Faulk v. Parrish, Fla., 58 So.2d 523.

¶7The Court found that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and entered final summary judgments in favor of the defendants.

¶8This Court has repeatedly held that a summary judgment should be entered where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and such facts show that the asserted claim is without merit. Nothing could be accomplished by submitting the case to the jury. Lomas v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 57 So.2d 881; Goodman v. Miami Beach Ry. Co., Fla., 57 So.2d 445; Richmond v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla., 58 So.2d 687; Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria of Orlando, Fla., 61 So.2d 477; Embry v. Southern Gas & Electric Corp., Fla., 63 So.2d 258, 264; Bottom v. Rank, Fla., 70 So.2d 832.

¶9It is likewise the settled law in this State that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence there can be no recovery. Ferlita & Sons v. Beck, 143 Fla. 509, 197 So. 340; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery, 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366; Clyde Bar, Inc. v. McClamma, 152 Fla. 118, 10 So.2d 916; Tutwiler v. Beverally Nalle, Inc., 152 Fla. 479, 12 So.2d 163; Miller v. Shull, Fla., 48 So.2d 521; Feigen v. Sokolsky, Fla., 65 So.2d 769.

¶10Affirmed.

¶11ROBERTS, C.J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

/74/so2d/230 · .json · Public domain