From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fouts v. Margules

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 5, 1957
98 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)

Opinion

No. 57-125.

November 5, 1957.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J.

E.E. Jordan, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Lane, Primm Lane, Miami, for appellee.


The plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing her complaint with prejudice. The trial judge ruled that the complaint was not amendable. The complaint sounds in tort and the allegations purporting to set forth negligence are clearly insufficient. These allegations do not, however, preclude the existence of a cause of action; therefore, that portion of the order of dismissal, dismissing the cause with prejudice and denying the privilege of amendment, is reversed.

That allegations of the complaint pertaining to the duty and the breach thereof are, if summarized in the light most favorable to the pleader, to the effect that the plaintiff was a business invitee in the defendant's place of business, where she was directed by the sales woman into the rear portion of the defendant's store in order to inspect merchandise for purchase. Further that she there fell over an exposed iron frame hollywood bed. No further particulars are given except by way of conclusion that the frame bed was left in a dangerous place.

It is strenuously urged that the plaintiff should have seen the article over which she stumbled and cut herself. Possibly she should have done so, but it cannot be said to be conclusively true from the scanty allegations of the complaint. Leave to amend should not be denied unless, and until the privilege to amend has been abused. This is true even though the trial judge is of the opinion that the proffered amendments would not result in the statement of a cause of action. Rule 1.15, 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.; Slavin v. McCann Plumbing Co., Fla. 1954, 73 So.2d 902; Town of Coreytown v. State ex rel. Ervin, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 482, 487, and cases therein cited. Of course this rule does not preclude a dismissal with prejudice where the complaint is clearly not amendable.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

CARROLL, CHAS., C.J., and HORTON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Fouts v. Margules

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 5, 1957
98 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)
Case details for

Fouts v. Margules

Case Details

Full title:ANNE M. FOUTS, APPELLANT, v. LOUIS MARGULES, D/B/A MODERN INTERIORS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 5, 1957

Citations

98 So. 2d 394 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)

Citing Cases

Whitley v. Maryland Casualty Company

We are of the opinion, however, that it would be more appropriate to allow Whitley to allege with more…

WATIER v. REW CRANE SERVICE, INC

Such authorization may even be included in the order granting summary judgment. Hart Properties, Inc. v.…