Case Name: Ronald PROUDFOOT and Kitty Proudfoot, his wife, Appellants, v. SEAESCAPE LIMITED, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-06-29
Citations: 620 So. 2d 1096
Docket Number: No. 93-328
Parties: Ronald PROUDFOOT and Kitty Proudfoot, his wife, Appellants, v. SEAESCAPE LIMITED, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 620
Pages: 1096–1096

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.