Case ID: so2d_620/html/1096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald PROUDFOOT and Kitty Proudfoot, his wife, Appellants, v. SEAESCAPE LIMITED, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee.
    No. 93-328.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 29, 1993.
    Weaver, Kuvin, Weaver & Lipton, Eric L. Stettin and Lawrence P. Kuvin, Fort Laud-erdale, for appellants.
    Keller, Houck & Shinkle, Ted L. Shinkle and Keith S. Brais, Miami, for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The duty to maintain Terminal No. 6 in the Port of Miami does not fall upon Seaes-cape. Metropolitan Dade County owns, cleans, inspects and maintains Terminal No. 6. Moreover, Port of Miami employees inspect, repair, maintain, and clean the terminal. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Seaescape. See Air Canada v. Smith, 357 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); see generally, Corrales v. Spieler, 588 So.2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Affirmed.