Articles Posted in Premises Liability

A new Florida Third District Court of Appeal decision offers valuable guidance for anyone injured on someone else’s property in Miami-Dade County. The case, Rodriguez v. Jaimes (Nov. 5, 2025), examined whether a property owner could avoid liability by claiming he no longer controlled the area where the injury occurred. The court rejected that argument and explained that Florida property owners cannot escape responsibility simply by distancing themselves from the condition that caused the harm. Incidents like this help clarify how negligence works in Florida premises cases and what victims must show to protect their rights.

Premises liability cases in South Florida involve slip-and-falls, unsafe walkways, collapsing structures, faulty lighting, and unsecured hazards. Property owners often argue that they lacked control, lacked knowledge, or lacked involvement in the event. The Third DCA’s recent analysis makes one point clear. Courts look closely at the total relationship between the owner and the property, not just the owner’s claims after the fact.

How Florida Courts View Control And Responsibility Over Property

Florida law requires property owners to maintain reasonably safe conditions for visitors. This duty applies whether the visitor enters a home, a business, a parking lot, or a rental property. The central question in many cases is control. When someone owns or occupies a space, courts expect that person to inspect for hazards and correct dangerous conditions.

Continue Reading ›

If you slip and fall on someone else’s property, you may think the property owner is automatically responsible for your injuries. But Florida law requires more than just proving that you got hurt. You also have to show that the owner knew—or should have known—about the dangerous condition that caused your fall. A recent decision by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal shows just how important it is to include this kind of detail in your legal claim.

Why This Slip and Fall Case Was Dismissed

In the case that was recently decided, someone who fell tried to sue the property owner. However, the lawsuit didn’t explain how the owner knew about the dangerous condition or even whether the condition had been there long enough that they should have known about it. Because the complaint was missing these details, the court threw the case out before it could move forward.

This case is a reminder that if you’ve been injured in a fall, it’s not enough to say the floor was wet or the area was unsafe. You need to explain what made it dangerous and why the property owner should be held responsible. That could mean showing that the hazard had been there for a while, that it had happened before, or that the property owner failed to check or clean the area.

Continue Reading ›

In Florida, property owners have a legal duty to maintain safe premises for visitors. When hazards exist in areas where people walk, owners must take reasonable steps to prevent injuries. Parking garages, designed primarily for vehicles, often double as pedestrian walkways. If an unmarked obstacle causes someone to trip and fall, questions arise about whether the property owner failed to uphold its responsibilities. A recent Florida appellate court decision reversed a trial court ruling after an injury victim presented evidence that an unmarked hazard in a parking garage created an unreasonable danger.

Raised Concrete Slab in a Florida Parking Garage Leads to Injury

A resort guest fell in a Miami parking garage after tripping over a raised concrete slab used to anchor a vehicle gate-arm. The hazard was unmarked and the same color as the surrounding pavement, making it difficult to detect. The injured individual filed a lawsuit against the property owner, alleging that the unmarked obstruction posed an unreasonably dangerous condition and that the owner failed to ensure a safe walking surface.

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.

Continue Reading ›

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.

Continue Reading ›

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.

Continue Reading ›

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.

Continue Reading ›

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.