Florida cases from 2021
Premises liability law in Florida is an area of law that is always changing. The most common issues where change is occurring relate to the existence of a duty of care, the standard of care, and the defenses to premises liability claims. Below are the most recent appellate court premises liability cases related to these issues which were decided in 2021.
Existence of a Duty of Care
Ferrer v. Jewelry Repair Enterprises, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. – January 20, 2021 – 310 So.3d 428
Headline: Franchisor had no legal duty to employee of franchisee who was shot by franchisee’s owner.
Summary of Issues: 1) Mere use of a uniform name and logo by the franchisee, and the franchisor’s regular and ongoing support and oversight in furtherance of the franchisor’s goal of providing standardization of products and services through its independently owned and operated franchisee, did not give franchisor actual or apparent control of franchisee, as would be required for franchisor to owe a legal duty to franchisee’s employee, who was shot by franchisee’s owner. 2) Franchisor lacked actual or apparent control of franchisee, as would be required for franchisor to owe a legal duty to franchisee’s employee, who was shot by franchisee’s owner; franchisee operated as an independently-owned entity, and franchise agreement did not provide franchisor with any authority over day-to-day business operation decisions. 3) The mere use of franchise logos and related advertisements does not necessarily indicate that the franchisor has actual or apparent control over any substantial aspect of the franchisee’s business or employment decisions, for purposes of determining whether the franchisor owes a legal duty to third parties, and the provision of routine contractual support services does not refute this conclusion.
Pratus v. Marzucco’s Construction & Coatings, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. January 15, 2021 – 310 So.3d 146
Headline: Fact issue as to whether the dangerous condition of an uncovered drain on construction site was obvious precluded summary judgment.
Summary of Issues: 1) The “obvious danger doctrine” provides that an owner or possessor of land is not liable for injuries to an invitee caused by a dangerous condition on the premises when the danger is known or obvious to the injured party unless the owner or possessor should anticipate the harm despite the fact that the dangerous condition is open and obvious. 2) The test for application of obvious danger doctrine is not whether the object is obvious, but whether the dangerous condition of the object is obvious. 3) In determining whether the obvious danger doctrine applies in a premises liability action, a court must consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the alleged dangerous condition.
Collias by and through Collias v. Gateway Academy of Walton County, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. – January 11, 2021 – 313 So.3d 163
Headline: Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of a private school in a negligence action against it arising from student’s injury.
Summary of Issues: 1) It is only when the risk of harm is so open and obvious that no reasonable person would injure himself under the circumstances that the duty to warn and the duty to make premises safe are simultaneously met. 2) Courts hesitate to absolve a property owner of liability from negligence on an “open and obvious” theory unless the crystalized and undisputed facts establish, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff knowingly undertook an open and obvious risk for which no warning is necessary. 3) The “open and obvious danger doctrine” can absolve a property owner on a failure to warn theory, but it does not absolve a property owner’s duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable risks, even if the invitees are aware of dangerous conditions, particularly ones they cannot avoid such as entries, passageways, sidewalks, stairs, and so on. 4) It is only when the risk of harm is so open and obvious that no reasonable person would injure himself under the circumstances that the duty to warn and the duty to make premises safe are simultaneously met. 5) Uneven pavement, traffic bumps, and steps of which invitees are aware are matters of common knowledge or everyday life that are not subject to a duty to warn or duty to make premises safe.
Standard of Care
Collias by and through Collias v. Gateway Academy of Walton County, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. – January 11, 2021 – 313 So.3d 163
Headline: Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of a private school in a negligence action against it arising from student’s injury.
Summary of Issues: 1) The “open and obvious danger doctrine” can absolve a property owner on a failure to warn theory, but it does not absolve a property owner’s duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable risks, even if the invitees are aware of dangerous conditions, particularly ones they cannot avoid such as entries, passageways, sidewalks, stairs, and so on. 2) Uneven pavement, traffic bumps, and steps of which invitees are aware are matters of common knowledge or everyday life that are not subject to a duty to warn or duty to make premises safe. 3) Those who invite children, who have not arrived at the age of discretion, to go upon their premises are required to exercise a relatively higher degree of care for their safety than to adults.
Defenses
Collias by and through Collias v. Gateway Academy of Walton County, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. – January 11, 2021 – 313 So.3d 163
Headline: Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of a private school in a negligence action against it arising from student’s injury.
Summary of Issue: To extend the obvious danger doctrine to bar a plaintiff from recovery by negating a landowner’s or occupier’s duty to invitees to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition would be inconsistent with the philosophy that liability should be apportioned according to fault.
Need Help or Have Questions?
Contact us today for a free case evaluation. We’ll listen to your case and explain your rights. When you’re ready to work with an experienced personal injury lawyer to help you with your premises liability case, please fill out the form on our Contact Us page or give us a call at (954) 458-8655.
Related: Florida Premises Liability Law
These recent premises liability cases are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Premises liability law is always changing. Therefore, we strongly recommend talking with an experienced Florida personal injury lawyer to learn your rights.
