Case Name: Edward D. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. Anthony GOETZ, d/b/a Emmy and Andy's Service Station, and Orange State Oil Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1958-07-31
Citations: 104 So. 2d 653
Docket Number: No. A-38
Parties: Edward D. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. Anthony GOETZ, d/b/a Emmy and Andy’s Service Station, and Orange State Oil Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: STURGIS, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 104
Pages: 653–657

Head Matter:
Edward D. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. Anthony GOETZ, d/b/a Emmy and Andy’s Service Station, and Orange State Oil Company, a Florida corporation, Appellees.
No. A-38.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.
July 31, 1958.
Kehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1958.
Horn & Ossinsky, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Hull, Landis, Graham & French and Alfred A. Green, Daytona Beach, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
WIGGINTON, Judge.
This appeal is from a final order entered consequent to the defendant-appellees' motions for summary judgment. The facts were established by plaintiff-appellant's undisputed deposition, which contains as exhibits certain photographs important to an understanding of the case.
The salient facts are: Plaintiff-appellant, while walking across appellees' premises for the purpose of paying a bill for oil previously purchased, caught his shoe on the broken edge of a concrete mound that encased the fill pipe leading to an underground gasoline storage tank, and was thus caused to fall on the paved area of the premises and incur serious injuries.
By his amended complaint it was alleged, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent and careless in permitting the concrete mounds around the fill pipes to become rough and jagged, thereby creating an inherently dangerous condition which was or should have been known to them. The defendants answered with a general denial, alleged contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and that plaintiff's negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.
In his deposition plaintiff admits that his injury occurred in mid-morning on a clear day; that his view was entirely unobstructed; that he had been on or around the premises in question on numerous occasions; that on such prior occasions he had observed the mounds in question; that "Normally walking, I watch them; normally watching, I would see the mounds;" and that he did in fact see them at the time he fell.
From the photographs on exhibit, which were identified by plaintiff as accurately portraying the scene of his injury, except they " ain't as clear as I seen it on the day I fell," it appears that the mounds are of obvious dimensions, generally oval in shape with clearly visible portions broken away at the edges, and located in an open and unobstructed expanse of the cemented area around the premises.
It cannot be disputed that plaintiff occupied the position of a business invitee. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the person or persons in control of the premises to exercise ordinary care for plaintiff's safety and to warn him of any latent or concealed defects which were or should have been known to them. This duty neither extends to nor imposes further duty to warn against patent or obvious conditions which are not dangerous per se. Our Supreme Court has continually adhered to the proposition that every person owes himself the duty to see what is plainly to be seen by the ordinary use of his senses, and, if patent and clearly visible, it is deemed in law to have been seen. Failing to exercise such care for his own safety, one cannot complain that he was not warned. And such neglect to any appreciable extent which contributes to the injury is a complete bar to recovery. Furthermore, when uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff shows that his own negligence either constituted the sole proximate cause of, or substantially contributed to his injury, the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment before trial, or a directed verdict during trial.
It is clearly apparent that the negligence of the plaintiff in the instant case was the cause of his injury, inasmuch as he admitted observing and being fully aware of the existence of the mound over which he tripped and fell. Plaintiff is held to have appreciated the danger, if any, inherent in the broken condition of the mound, since that condition was so patently visible upon the ordinary use of the senses. His failure to exercise due care for his own safety bars recovery.
From the foregoing it follows that plaintiff's right to recover being precluded as a matter of law, the trial court was eminently correct in granting summary judgment for defendants. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from must be and it is hereby affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., concurs.
. Hall v. Holland, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 889.
. Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d 366.
. See: Bowles v. Bikes Pontiac Co., Fla.1952, 63 So.2d 769.
. Supra Note 2.
. Connolly v. Sebeeo, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482.
. Faulk v. Parrish, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 523.