Case Name: Sylvia SCHOEN and David Schoen, Petitioners, v. Robert GILBERT and Highland Insurance Company, Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-07-28
Citations: 436 So. 2d 75
Docket Number: No. 61331
Parties: Sylvia SCHOEN and David Schoen, Petitioners, v. Robert GILBERT and Highland Insurance Company, Respondents.
Judges: ALDERMAN, C.J., and OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 436
Pages: 75–77

Head Matter:
Sylvia SCHOEN and David Schoen, Petitioners, v. Robert GILBERT and Highland Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 61331.
Supreme Court of Florida.
July 28, 1983.
Jay M. Levy of Silver, Levy & Hershoff, Miami, for petitioners.
Henry H. Harnage of Worley & Harnage, and Worley & Gautier, Miami, for respondents.

Opinion:
BOYD, Justice.
We have for review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, Schoen v. Gilbert, 404 So.2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which conflicts with Ellis v. McCaskill, 382 So.2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 389 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Petitioner Sylvia Schoen (plaintiff in the trial court) was a social guest of Robert Gilbert in his home, which was constructed with a six-inch drop between the foyer and the living room. While seated in the kitchen Gilbert invited Ms. Schoen to look around, but did not accompany her. Because of poor lighting Ms. Schoen did not see the step separating the foyer and living room. As a result she fell while entering the living room. She sued Gilbert for damages resulting from her injuries, claiming he was negligent in failing to warn her of the step. The trial court granted a summary judgment in Gilbert's favor, and the district court of appeal affirmed.
We approve the district court's decision. The law is well settled "that a difference in floor levels does not of itself constitute failure to use due care for the safety of a person invited to the premises and there is no duty to issue warning of such condition when it is obvious and not inherently dangerous." Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d 138, 139 (Fla.1955). See also General Development Corp. v. Doles, 309 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Jahn v. Tierra Verde City, Inc., 166 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Petitioner argues that because of the poor lighting the step was not obvious and was therefore rendered inherently dangerous. We cannot agree with such reasoning. The amount of interior lighting cannot transform a difference in floor levels into an inherently dangerous condition. "That type of construction is common and no one entering a home can assume that the floors of all rooms in the same story have the same level, blindly travel on the presumption, disregard his own safety, stumble, fall, and recover." Hoag v. Moeller, 82 So.2d at 139.
Next petitioner argues that whether a homeowner has the duty to warn a guest of a difference in floor levels is "a factual question not susceptible to determination by summary judgment." Ellis v. McCaskill, 382 So.2d at 810. We disagree. Because a difference in floor levels is not an inherently dangerous condition, even in dim lighting, a homeowner has no duty to warn of such condition as a matter of law. We find that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in respondent's favor. We therefore approve the decision of the district court of appeal and disapprove Ellis v. McCaskill.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion.
EHRLICH, J., dissents.