The appellant sued the appellees, the owners and operators of a hotel, for injuries he received while a guest in the hotel, when a chair in the room assigned to him collapsed under him, causing him to fall with resultant injury. The appellees moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and this appeal followed.
The appellant was the first occupant of a room in the hotel on a floor which was newly opened for occupancy of guests. He charged appellees with negligence in failing to furnish reasonably safe premises for his use as an invitee, by supplying a defective chair, and alleged that the appellees knew or by reasonable inspection could have and should have known that the chair was defective.
Appellees' motion for summary judgment was supported by affidavits of the chief
The question of negligence was one to be determined by a jury. Here it hinged on whether the chair was defective, and, if so, whether a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect and whether the inspection which was made was reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances.
Appellant argues, and we must agree, that appellees' affidavits were not sufficient to conclusively demonstrate that a reasonable and proper inspection of the chair was made. The alleged failure to inspect with which we are concerned here is an initial inspection of new premises by an innkeeper to determine if the premises meet the requirement for the innkeeper to provide his business invitees a reasonably safe place for their sojourn. Miller v. Shull, Fla. 1950, 48 So.2d 521; Goldin v. Lipkind, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 539, 27 A.L.R.2d 816; Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 218; Steinberg v. Irwin Operating Co., Fla. 1956, 90 So.2d 460, 58 A.L.R.2d 1198.
The appellant-plaintiff, in opposing the motion for summary judgment was entitled to the benefit of all inferences which were reasonably to be drawn from the facts disclosed. Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla. App. 1958, 105 So.2d 175; Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 915. Here, from the fact that the chair failed to support appellant, it could be inferred that it was defective. Whether the defect was one discoverable on reasonable inspection was an undetermined question. Since the defect, if present, was the failure of the chair to bear the weight of its first user, it was a permissible inference that it would have broken no matter who sat on it. The type of inspection the affidavits described was insufficient to foreclose the question of whether the appellees by a reasonable inspection could have or should have known of such defect, especially since the inspection did not include testing the chair for weight bearing; and the learned trial judge was in error in holding as a matter of law that the affidavits showed adequate inspection and conclusively determined the issue of negligence. See Economy Cash & Carry Cleaners, Inc. v. Gitlin, 1941, 146 Fla. 242, 1 So.2d 191; Harvey v. Maistrosky, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So.2d 810.
HORTON, C.J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.