Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Hollandgreen2 sentences2023See Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950) (explaining that an "owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses, and is not required to give to the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger"); see also Adair v. The Island Club, 225 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (applying the open and obvious danger rule to licensees). 2020However, “[a]n ‘owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.’” Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), citing Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950). | 4 | 8 |
Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co.green2 sentences2020However, “[a]n ‘owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.’” Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), citing Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950). 2011Nor need he alter the premises to eliminate known and obvious dangers.” Id. at 839 (quoting Hall v. Holland, 47 So.2d 889, 891-92 (Fla.1950) (citations omitted)). | 1 | 4 |
Storr v. Proctorgreen1 sentence2024An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an 2 obvious danger.” (quoting Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1986))); Gooding v. Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Adair v. the Island Clubgreen1 sentence2023See Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950) (explaining that an "owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses, and is not required to give to the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger"); see also Adair v. The Island Club, 225 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (applying the open and obvious danger rule to licensees). | 1 | 1 |
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Fergusongreen1 sentence2016See also Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him [or her] upon the ordinary use, of his own sense[s], and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.”) (citation omitted); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Some conditions are simply so open and obvious, so common and so' ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition.” | 1 | 1 |
Aventura Mall Venture v. Olsongreen1 sentence2016See also Aventura Mall Venture v. Olson, 561 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him [or her] upon the ordinary use, of his own sense[s], and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.”) (citation omitted); Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (“Some conditions are simply so open and obvious, so common and so' ordinarily innocuous, that they can be held as a matter of law to not constitute a hidden dangerous condition.” | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Millergreen1 sentence1990"An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense[s], and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger." Crawford, 542 So.2d at 1051 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Messner v. Webb's City
green
2 sentences1979Messner v. Webb's City, supra. Nor need he alter the premises to eliminate known and obvious dangers. 1959It should be noted, however, that the `owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses, and is not required to give to the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger', Hall v. Holland, supra, * *." Messner v. Webb's City, Fla. 1952, 62 So.2d 66, 67 . | 3 | 1959–1979 |
Melton v. Estes
green
2 sentences1989Melton v. Estes, 379 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). 1986Melton v. Estes, 379 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So.2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). | 2 | 1986–1989 |
Pertl v. Exit Information Guide, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000See Hall, 47 So.2d at 891-892 ; Pertl, 708 So.2d at 958 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.