346 So.3d 120
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Pozanco visited a house where Rodriguez was house‑sitting for the defendant and, after drinking, was encouraged to swim and given a swimsuit.
- Pozanco dove head‑first late at night, believing he was diving into a deep end; the pool was 3 feet deep at both ends and 5 feet in the middle, and he struck his head, suffering permanent injuries.
- Pozanco alleged the pool’s unconventional design, poor lighting, absence of warning signs, and placement of four large planters (which obscured one set of steps) led him reasonably to believe the opposite end was deep enough to dive.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the danger was open and obvious and homeowners owe no duty for usual pool risks; trial court granted summary judgment for defendant.
- On appeal the court considered whether the combination of design and attendant circumstances could create a hidden danger or trap that would give rise to a duty to warn, concluding summary judgment was improper because genuine factual disputes remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn for shallow pool design | Pozanco: pool design + lighting, planters, and alcohol made depth nondiscoverable; duty to warn of shallow ends and no‑dive risk | Defendant: homeowners generally owe no duty for usual pool risks; danger was open and obvious | Reversed summary judgment; factual dispute whether hidden danger/trap existed that could create duty to warn |
| Applicability of open‑and‑obvious doctrine | Pozanco: obstructions, poor lighting, and optical impression of deep end make danger not reasonably discoverable | Defendant: pool dangers are typically obvious; compliance with codes supports no duty | Court: cannot resolve as matter of law; open‑and‑obvious may be defeated by hidden danger/optical illusion facts |
| Relevance of building‑code compliance | Pozanco: compliance alone does not negate foreseeability or duty when other conditions obscure danger | Defendant: code compliance shows reasonable care and supports summary judgment | Court: code compliance is not dispositive; genuine issues remain for jury |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment under prior Florida standard | Pozanco: ‘‘slightest doubt’’ standard requires denying summary judgment where facts conflict | Defendant: claimed no genuine issue of material fact | Court: applied pre‑May 2021 standard and held movant failed to conclusively negate plaintiff’s theory; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So. 2d 1309 (1986) (articulates open‑and‑obvious doctrine and exception if possessor should anticipate harm)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (1992) (duty centers on foreseeability and reasonable general foresight)
- Grimes v. Family Dollar Stores of Fla., 194 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (landowner duties: maintain reasonably safe premises and warn of latent/concealed dangers)
- Tremblay v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 560 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (owner not liable for water hazards unless constructed as trap or unusual danger exists)
- Navarro v. Country Village Homeowners’ Ass’n, 654 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (artificial bodies of water not actionable absent trap or unusual element)
- Echevarria v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 306 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (optical illusion from blended surfaces can create triable hidden‑danger issue)
- Bejarano v. City of Coral Gables, 300 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (obstructed sightlines can create factual dispute on foreseeability and duty)
- Lotto v. Point E. Two Condo. Corp., Inc., 702 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (even obvious conditions can raise triable issues when foreseeability of use suggests risk)
- Clark v. Lumbermans Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 465 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff plainly could detect and appreciate water depth)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgments in negligence should be cautiously granted)