Kupperman v. Levine
Docket: 84-1177
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 8, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Esther and Fred Kupperman challenge the dismissal of their amended complaint for damages following Esther's fall in the home of appellees Daniel and Barbara Levine. The incident occurred on February 14, 1983, due to what the Kuppermans claimed was an inherently dangerous and non-obvious condition related to a dining table and chairs. Specifically, they argued that the chairs, despite appearing to be of uniform height, had variations in leg lengths caused by a change in floor grade, which created an optical illusion exacerbated by poor lighting. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on precedent from *Schoen v. Gilbert*, which established that a difference in floor levels is not inherently dangerous and does not create a duty for homeowners to warn about such conditions, even in dim lighting. The court noted that variations in floor levels are common in construction and do not generally warrant legal action. However, the appellate court found that the Kuppermans' allegations included factors beyond mere changes in floor levels and dim lighting, such as an uncommon mode of construction with a floor level change in the middle of a room and furniture designed to create an illusion of a level floor. The appellate court held that these allegations were sufficient to distinguish this case from *Schoen*. Nevertheless, it emphasized that the Kuppermans would need to prove a causal relationship between the alleged deceptive condition and Esther's fall to succeed. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Letts dissented, arguing that the situation was similar to that in *Schoen* and critiquing the optical illusion argument as insufficient for a cause of action. He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would agree with his view.