Premises Liability

Court Reverses Florida Premises Liability Verdict in Case Involving Hazardous Ramp

Published on: October 14, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent decision by the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida’s Fourth District has brought attention to critical aspects of premises liability law. The case involved a victim who suffered a fall on a ramp at an office complex, claiming the ramp’s uneven slope caused her injuries. The victim sued the property owner for premises liability, arguing that the ramp was unsafe and did not meet Florida’s building standards. However, the court ultimately reversed the initial verdict, highlighting the importance of proving the property owner’s knowledge of the dangerous condition under Florida law.

This case emphasizes the legal requirements for establishing fault in premises liability claims and reminds injured parties that they must provide compelling evidence that the property owner was aware or should have been aware of the hazard.

Premises Liability and the Duty of Property Owners

Premises liability law in Florida requires property owners to maintain reasonably safe conditions for those who lawfully enter their property. If a dangerous condition exists, the owner has a duty to either correct it or provide adequate warning. However, to succeed in a premises liability lawsuit, a victim must prove that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition and failed to take appropriate action.

In this case, the victim fell on a ramp that, according to her expert witness, did not meet the slope standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Building Code. The architect testified that the ramp’s uneven and steep slope exceeded acceptable limits, which could pose a danger to anyone using it. The victim who had walked on the ramp numerous times before the fall, testified that she injured her leg due to the slope.

Despite these claims, the property owner argued that the ramp had been installed over two decades earlier and had passed multiple inspections without issue. No one had previously reported any problems with the ramp, and the owner had no knowledge of its potential danger. The court found that the victim failed to provide evidence that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the ramp’s hazardous condition, ultimately reversing the trial court’s decision in favor of the property owner.

Florida Court Reverses Personal Injury Verdict After Tenant’s Fall on Unsafe Flooring

Published on: October 7, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

A recent decision by the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida has underscored the legal responsibilities landlords and property management companies have when it comes to maintaining rental units. The case involved a tenant who sustained injuries after falling on loose floor tiles in his apartment, leading to a lawsuit against both the condominium association and the property management company. The court’s reversal of the initial summary judgment highlights the importance of understanding Florida’s negligence laws and the ongoing duty property owners have to ensure their premises remain safe for tenants.

Negligence and Landlord’s Continuing Duty to Repair Dangerous Conditions

In Florida, landlords have a dual responsibility: a pre-possession duty to inspect and repair the property before a tenant moves in and a post-possession duty to address dangerous conditions reported by the tenant. Florida Statutes and case law clearly outline these responsibilities, especially when tenants report potentially hazardous conditions that could lead to injury.

In this case, the tenant had been residing in his apartment for over a year when he experienced a fall due to loose floor tiles near the entrance of his unit. The tenant’s wife had previously reported the loose tiles to both the property management company and the condominium association, giving them ample notice of the problem. The tenant, however, was forced to continue walking through the hazardous area because it was the only entrance to the unit.

The property owner and management company argued they were not liable because the tenant knew about the loose tiles, and the hazard was “open and obvious.” The trial court initially agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the property owner and management company. However, on appeal, the court reversed this decision, explaining that the landlord’s duty to repair hazardous conditions does not disappear simply because the tenant is aware of the problem.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court, Rejecting Plaintiff’s Claim in Premise Liability Slip-And-Fall Case

Published on: May 14, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a premises liability action arising from a slip-and-fall incident at Joe’s Crab Shack, the defendant. The plaintiff, Jose Duran, dined at Joe’s Crab Shack, and on his way out, slipped and fell. Duran filed suit seeking damages for the injuries sustained from the fall that he claimed resulted from Joe’s Crab Shack’s negligence.

Facts of the Case

Duran and two out-of-town friends went to lunch at Joe’s Crab Shack in Daytona Beach, Florida on March 11, 2018, a busy Sunday afternoon at the restaurant. As Duran was leaving, he slipped and fell in something wet, which he believed to be a “brownish” liquid. Duran fell several feet away from the kitchen door where servers bring drinks on a tray to be served to patrons. John Calo, a regional director for Joe’s Crab Shack who noticed Duran as he entered the restaurant because Duran had a “labored” and “extreme” gait, estimated Duran fell approximately twelve feet from the kitchen door, in the general walkway “in the dining room” area. The record makes clear this location is a high-traffic area heavily traversed by both customers and employees alike because it is a main pathway for customers entering and exiting the dining area of the restaurant.

Duran filed suit seeking damages for the injuries sustained from the fall that he claimed resulted from Joe’s Crab Shack’s negligence. Ultimately, the restaurant moved for summary
judgment, arguing Duran was unable to meet his burden of establishing that the restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the substance that caused his fall.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and entered final summary judgment in favor of Joe’s Crab Shack. Duran then filed a timely appeal.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Premise Liability Case, Ruling Against Injured Worker

Published on: April 30, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Third District issued an opinion in an appeal in a premise liability case between a worker, Raul Arias, who was injured at his place of employment, Excel Converting, Inc., and Codealtex, LLC, the company that leases the property to Excel. Appellant Raul Arias was injured while operating machinery at Excel and subsequently sued Codealtex, alleging it had a duty to maintain the premises and the machinery that he was injured by.

Excel leased the premises where Arias was injured from Codealtex. Arias sued Codealtex, alleging it had a duty to maintain the premises and specifically the machinery on which he was injured. Codealtex moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Arias timely appealed. The appeals court decision emphasized control of the property, finding that “once a landlord delivers possession and control of the leased premises . . . to the tenant, the landlord is not liable for injury to the property or person of the tenant or those on the premises with the permission of the tenant.” As a result, the appellate court affirmed the lower court decision, upholding the summary judgment ruling.

While the open and obvious doctrine can prevent plaintiffs from successfully holding landowners fully accountable for injuries in Florida, there are other ways to make sure injured parties are properly compensated. Florida landowners are still required to maintain their land and the premises in a safe condition. The courts of Florida have ruled that landowners can still be at fault for failing to maintain safe premises, even if an obvious or open danger means they do not need to warn others. Specifically, even in circumstances that are open or obvious, property owners should anticipate that people on the property will encounter the hazard, and subsequently can be found negligent for failing to maintain the premises safely. In such a situation, the plaintiff may be found to have contributed to their own injury, but the landowner can still be apportioned blame.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court, Finding Against Plaintiff in Premise Liability Slip-And-Fall Case

Published on: March 5, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a premises liability action arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a Wal-Mart store. The suit was between Sandra Leftwich, the Appellant, and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”) and Thomas Schoendorf., the Appellees, arising from an incident where Leftwich slipped and fell in the Walmart.

Facts of the Case

The issue arose when Leftwich went to a Walmart location to shop and slipped on what she described as a clear liquid on the floor of the store. Video footage failed to capture the liquid, but an inspection of the area revealed a clear liquid on the ground after the incident. It is undisputed that Walmart had no prior knowledge of the liquid. In support of its motion, Walmart submitted the deposition of its former employee, Peterson, who was seen on the video pulling a pallet near the spill area nine minutes before the incident. The trial court’s order noted that Peterson’s pallet was not over the subject area or leaking.

In his deposition, Peterson explained that he was almost always looking on the floors for spills and debris. Given the area of the alleged spill, Peterson unequivocally testified that he would have noticed the liquid had it already been on the floor. When asked how long the spill was on the floor, he stated that it would have been there for less than ten minutes.

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court in Premise Liability Case

Published on: January 19, 2024 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Second District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a duty to warn or duty of reasonable care premise liability action between the Appellant, Melanie Chadwell Norris, and the Appellee, Alan Rodriguez. Ms. Norris sustained injuries after tripping on Mr. Rodriguez’s concrete driveway and claimed that she was a public invitee because she fell in the portion of the driveway located within a public right-of-way. The trial court categorized Ms. Norris as an uninvited licensee to whom Mr. Rodriguez owed no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. The appeals court affirmed the lower court decision, rejecting the appeal by Ms. Norris.

After returning home from watching a movie, Ms. Norris walked across the street from her boyfriend’s house while her boyfriend went to get their dog for a walk. It was nighttime and dark outside. After crossing the street, Ms. Norris attempted to cross over Mr. Rodriguez’s property to access a public sidewalk. Ms. Norris allegedly tripped over the corner of the apron of the driveway where the concrete of the driveway was broken and raised, sustaining injuries in the process. Ms. Norris then sued Mr. Rodriguez for her injuries, claiming that she was a public invitee on the property and that Mr. Rodriguez owed her a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition. At trial, both parties moved for summary judgment on liability, and the court granted final summary judgment in favor of Mr. Rodriguez, holding that Ms. Norris was at best an uninvited licensee when she entered his property. Ms. Norris then filed an appeal.

On appeal, Ms. Norris argued that she fell in an area of Mr. Rodriguez’s driveway that was located within the county right-of-way en route to the public sidewalk. The appeals court disagreed, finding that Ms. Norris attempted to cut across Mr. Rodriguez’s driveway for her own fancy, to reach the public sidewalk to walk her dog. The court further states that there was no evidence that Mr. Rodriguez held his property open to the public. The appellate opinion states that as an uninvited licensee Mr. Rodriguez owed Ms. Norris a duty “to refrain from willful misconduct or wanton negligence . . . and to refrain from intentionally exposing [Ms. Norris] to danger”—there is no evidence that Mr. Rodriguez breached these duties in the present case. The appeals court affirmed the lower court decision, striking down the appeal.

Florida Appeals Court Finds Against Plaintiff in Liability Case, Affirming Trial Court

Published on: December 31, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida Fourth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a premises liability action arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a restaurant. The suit was between Elizabeth Sentz, the Appellant, and Bonefish Grill, LLC (Bonefish Grill), the Appellee, arising from an incident where Sentz slipped and fell after a brunch at a Bonefish Grill location.

Facts of the Case

The issue arose when Sentz went to a Bonefish Grill location with four friends for brunch. The group was at the Bonefish Grill for a couple of hours, and Sentz had something to eat and drink. Near the end of her visit, Sentz visited the restroom. She slipped on water on the floor about eight to 12 feet from the bathroom door. The flooring was tile, with the look of hardwood. She described the area where she fell as a dining area separated by a wall from where she was seated with her friends. Prior to her fall, Sentz did not see the liquid. She did not know how that liquid got onto the floor, and how long the liquid had been on the floor before her fall. The puddle of liquid had a diameter of about 12 to 18 inches. She saw pieces of melted ice in the puddle.

Prior to returning to her table, a server came around the corner and Sentz notified her of the spill, telling the server that she had fallen. The server replied that she was aware of the spill and had meant to clean it up before. Other than that interaction, Sentz did not speak with the server at any other time. Sentz argued sufficient record evidence showed that BFG was aware of the dangerous condition, as the female server told Sentz that she was already aware of the presence of liquid and had meant to return to clean it prior to Sentz’s fall.

Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court Motion to Amend Decision in Florida Car Dealership Liability Case

Published on: July 31, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

Recently, the district court of appeals for the State of Florida Fourth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence claim by the appellee, the plaintiff, against the appellant, Napleton’s North Palm Auto Park, Inc., (the Dealership). The plaintiff sued the Dealership after an employee (Employee) of the Dealership hit the plaintiff’s parked car while allegedly intoxicated during his shift, alleging negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the Dealership’s employee. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to add a punitive damages claim.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and the Employee were both employed by the Dealership. The Employee maintains that on the day of the alleged incident, he had “a couple drinks” while on his lunch break at home before he returned to work. That evening the Employee “brushed” alongside the plaintiff’s parked car as he was moving his car from an employee lot across the street to a closer parking lot. The Employee was later arrested and would enter a guilty plea to a DUI charge and his employment was terminated on the day of the accident.

The plaintiff then sued the Dealership for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the Employee. She alleged that the Dealership knew or should have known that the Employee had been found guilty of a DUI offense prior to hiring him, and the Dealership knew or should have known that the Employee consumed alcohol during work hours. The plaintiff then moved to amend her complaint, adding a claim for punitive damages. In doing so, she highlighted three events to establish the Dealership’s knowledge of the Employee’s history of driving while intoxicated: (1) the Employee’s prior DUI conviction in 2006; (2) the Dealership’s discipline of the Employee in January 2020 based on another employee’s suspicion of the Employee being intoxicated while on the clock; and (3) the assistant manager’s observation that the Employee was acting “off” and “loopy.”

Florida Appeals Court Finds in Favor of Plaintiff in Premise Liability Case

Published on: July 17, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent case, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fifth District issued an opinion in an appeal involving a duty to warn or duty of reasonable care premise liability action between a plaintiff that was a customer entering a store, and the defendant, the company operating the store, Panera. The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff tripped and fell on a weighted sign base as she was entering the Panera location.

The trial court found in favor of the defendant granting summary judgment, finding that there was no concealed peril that would have triggered a duty to warn, and, further, that the plaintiff failed to look down, which caused her to trip and fall on the base. In finding that the base she tripped on was open and obvious, the court ruled that the restaurant was not liable for injuries and harm. In Florida, the open and obvious doctrine provides that landowners are not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of their land when the danger is known or obvious unless the landowner would anticipate those injuries.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that in many open and obvious cases, the conditions are inherent to the landscape, such as uneven pavement or traffic bumps, which is not the case in this claim. The appellate court agreed, holding that the sign base is not so common as to be encountered by people on a daily basis. As a result, the appeals court ruled that there was an issue of material fact present, reversing the trial court decision.

Appellate Court Decides Not to Invoke Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Published on: February 28, 2023 | by Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada, P.A.

In a recent opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, a plaintiff appealed his claims after he was denied damages in a suit relating to his sustained injuries from a heavy object being dropped onto his foot. The plaintiff attempted to hold Sunbelt, the loader’s owner, directly liable for his injuries. The complaint alleged that Sunbelt should be held liable for its negligent failure to require that the operators of its loaders be properly trained and should be vicariously liable for the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of the loader under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The trial court sided against the plaintiff, which led the plaintiff to appeal.

In this case, the defendant is a licensed contractor who was hired for a clean-up job on private property. The plaintiff accompanied the defendant to the clean-up site and assisted the defendant with cleaning the debris. There were ramps placed inside a bucket attachment that the defendant brought to the cleanup site. After all of the debris was collected, the defendant directed the plaintiff to retrieve the ramps so that the defendant could drive the loader back onto the trailer. The defendant picked up the bucket attachment using the loader’s grapple and drove the loaders toward the trailer. The loader came to a complete stop, and the plaintiff approached the loader on foot and reached into the bucket attachment to retrieve the ramps from within the bucket. While doing so, the loader lurched forward unexpectedly, slipped from his grip, fell on his foot, and amputated two of his toes.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability on the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes harm to another. Under this doctrine, an owner who entrusts another to operate the motor vehicle has an obligation to ensure that the vehicle is operated safely. There is an exception to the doctrine, where the person entrusted with the vehicle injures another while both persons are using the vehicle. If this exception applies, the vehicle’s owner cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle. The exception applies when the individuals are “jointly operating and controlling the movement of the vehicle with common purpose and community interest of enterprise, with equal right to control and direct the conduct of each other.”