
    Radamas FARINAS, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mercedes Farinas, deceased, Appellants, v. SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL, Appellee.
    No. 98-2116.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 5, 1999.
    Ronald C. Pathman, Miami, for appellants.
    Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder (Ft.Lauderdale); Alan L. Landsberg and Carol Seiderman (Hollywood), for appellee.
    Before COPE, LEVY, and SORONDO, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Mrs. Farinas walked into a low table connected to the end of a couch in the lobby of South Shore Hospital. According to the appellants, the table was next to the lobby door and obstructed the exit path from the lobby. Appellants claim that because of its location and unique design, the table was difficult to see from the direction Mrs. Farinas was exiting and, as a result, was a dangerous obstruction to the lobby exit. Appellants filed suit against South Shore Hospital alleging that Mrs. Farinas was severely and permanently injured as a direct result of the hospital’s negligence in placing a table in its lobby that obstructed the exit. South Shore Hospital moved for summary judgment. Appellants filed affidavits in opposition to the motion. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court concluded that the placement of the table was not significant and found that no hazard existed.

The appellants contend, however, that because of the unique construction of the couch in question, specifically including the configuration of the attached end table, the question of whether the placement of the couch near the exit posed a hazard could only be resolved by a jury. We agree.

Accordingly, noting that the record reflects the existence of a disputed issue of material fact, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

LEVY and SORONDO, JJ., concur.

COPE, J.

(specially concurring).

For lack of a better term, I would describe the furniture on which plaintiff fell as a “cantilevered” end table. The photographs show it to be a legless end table which is physically bolted to the end of a long couch. This gives the end table the appearance of floating in midair, approximately sixteen inches off the floor. From the angle at which the plaintiff approached the table, the table surface appears to blend into the floor.

This piece of furniture would be perfectly satisfactory when positioned so that the “floating” table is positioned in a corner or between pieces of furniture. In this case, however, the hospital had positioned the “floating” end table immediately adjacent to the hospital’s main entrance. I do not agree with the majority opinion that the end table literally obstructed the entry door, because the end table is placed just to one side. However, when walking across the waiting room in a diagonal path toward the front door, the end table is in the most direct line of travel. In view of the table’s low height, lack of legs and lack of any objects on the table, there is no visual barrier to call attention to the table. Because of its unique design and tendency to blend into the floor, I concur that there is a triable issue on whether this particular placement of the “floating” end table created a hazard.

While the hospital contends that the end table was open and obvious, there is under the circumstances of this case an issue over whether the table could truly be considered obvious. See McCarthy v. Garcia Menendez Enters. Inc., 693 So.2d 75, 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (concurring opinion); Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) & cmt. b, f (1965). I concur that the summary judgment must be reversed.  