Articles Posted in Premises Liability

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.

In a recent case, the First District Court of Appeals in Florida 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 in a store and the defendant, the company operating the store. The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff tripped inside the store. The trial court found in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff due to an open and obvious condition. In Florida, the open and obvious doctrine provides that a landowner is not liable for injuries and harm caused by a dangerous condition of their land when the danger is known or obvious unless the landowner would anticipate those injuries.

A recent state supreme court case explored the issue of the open and obvious doctrine when a plaintiff sued a church after tripping on the top step of a flight of stairs. In that case, the court ruled that due to the fact that the plaintiff had used those stairs just minutes before and due to the fact that the top step was made from different material and looked different from the other steps, the danger was open and obvious, and therefore the defendant was not liable for the injury.

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 a 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 negligence law allows for several different types of damages to be awarded in a negligence case. The primary damages awarded are known as compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are awarded to a victim to compensate them for the economic costs related to an injury. These costs could include medical bills, missed work, and property damage. Special damages, sometimes referred to as “noneconomic damages,” can be awarded to compensate victims for other harm related to an accident, such as pain and suffering or emotional distress. Courts also may award punitive damages to a plaintiff, which are designed to punish a defendant for especially egregious conduct that resulted in harm to a plaintiff. A Florida appellate court recently rejected a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in a breach of contract claim that alleged gross negligence.

The plaintiffs in the recently decided case rented an apartment from the defendant. Based on poor living conditions and possibly harm and injury therefrom, the plaintiffs filed a breach of contract claim against the defendant, seeking financial damages for the defendant’s failure to market a safe and livable property for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested punitive damages in the count of the complaint which alleged gross negligence by the defendant. The defendant’s attorneys objected to the damage request, arguing that such damages can only be awarded as part of an independent tort (negligence) claim, and not under a breach of contract allegation. The trial court allowed the plaintiff’s claim to proceed, finding that the “gross negligence” allegation was enough to meet the requirement.

The defendant appealed the decision to the Florida Court of Appeal, where the trial court’s ruling was reversed. The appellate court reiterated that punitive damages are not awardable in breach of contract cases unless an independent tort claim is made as well. The court found that an allegation of “gross negligence” contained within a breach of contract claim is not enough to satisfy this requirement. As a result of the appellate ruling, the plaintiff’s punitive damage claim will not reach the jury if the case goes to trial.

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals in Florida issued an opinion in an appeal involving a negligence and premises liability action between a plaintiff that was driving, and the defendant, a construction and engineering firm. The suit resulted from an incident where the plaintiff’s vehicle struck a protruding manhole cover while driving through Miami-Dade County. On the date of the accident, the defendant firm was performing roadwork in the area pursuant to a contract with the Florida Department of Transportation. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit against the defendant for negligence and premises liability. Following the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to put forth sufficient evidence that the manhole cover he struck was located in the position he initially described it as.

During the trial, the plaintiff unequivocally testified at least three separate times during his first deposition that the manhole cover was located on West Flagler Street between 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue. During discovery, the plaintiff also produced close-up photographs of the manhole cover, testifying that he took the photographs some time after the accident occurred, though he could not remember exactly when. The photographs depict a manhole cover with a “W” in the center and several white striped circles around the “W.” The plaintiff also testified that he was unsure which of the two westbound lanes he was traveling in when he struck the manhole.

In a second deposition nearly two months later, when the defense counsel presented the plaintiff with a Google Earth photograph of the area where the incident occurred, the plaintiff identified the manhole cover in the right lane as the one he believed was involved in the accident. The manhole cover identified by the plaintiff had dots embedded across the cover and the word “sewer” displayed on it. The Google Earth photograph also showed a water main manhole cover in the left lane with a “W” in a box in the center. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that it was not liable to the plaintiff because the manhole cover identified by the plaintiff was different than the one depicted in the close-up photographs taken by him. The plaintiff argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant.

In Florida, the Third District Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in a plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court’s finding in favor of an apartment complex. According to the record, the apartment complex owns a six-floor building. On the day of the incident, the then seventeen-year-old plaintiff trespassed and gained access to the apartment complex rooftop with the intention to commit suicide. The plaintiff did not complete suicide but endured severe injuries, including the amputation of his leg.

In Florida, premises liability law provides that generally, property owner or occupier has a duty to maintain a premise or property in a reasonably safe way. Additionally, a plaintiff may pursue a negligence per se claim if they establish that the defendant violated an ordinance or law to prevent the type of incident that occurred.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the complex, alleging that the defendant owed a duty to prevent suicide on the rooftop. Under the restriction theory of suicide prevention, the theory posits that by eliminating or restricting access to methods by which people attempt suicide, the overall rate of suicide attempts decreases. However, the plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that the defendant breached a specific duty to prevent or guard against his suicide attempt. As such, the trial court concluded that private building owners do not owe a duty to undiscovered trespassers to prevent suicide.