Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp.
78 So. 3d 732
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Burton sued CVS and MDC for injuries from a pothole in CVS’s back parking area.
- Pothole measured about 1 foot wide and 2 inches deep, located 10–15 feet from the back door; Burton noticed and warned others before the incident.
- Burton informed CVS management and coworkers of the pothole prior to the accident.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding Burton’s knowledge discharged the duty to warn and to maintain, in favor of MDC and CVS.
- Appellate review is de novo; landowners owe independent duties: (1) maintain premises safely, (2) warn of concealed perils; Burton conceded knowledge of the pothole.
- CVS argued MDC’s contract obligation to maintain the lot absolved CVS of duty; the court did not accept that blanket allocation and noted potential independent duties for tenants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open/obvious defects discharge the duty to maintain or warn. | Burton: open/obvious pothole does not negate duty to maintain. | MDC/CVS: open/obvious condition discharges the duty to warn; maintenance duty may be discharged by knowledge. | Open/obvious does not discharge maintenance duty; duty to maintain remains. |
| Whether CVS, under the lease, can have an independent duty to maintain or warn. | CVS may have independent duty to maintain or warn despite MDC lease. | Lease control defeats or confines CVS’s maintenance duty; MDC bears maintenance duty. | Tenant may have independent duty; issue for jury; remand for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lomack v. Mowrey, 14 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (open-and-obvious does not discharge duty to maintain)
- Fieldhouse v. Tam Inv. Co., 959 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (open-and-obvious may discharge warning duty but not maintenance)
- Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (warning obligations for obvious dangers)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (negligence in maintenance may create triable issues despite obvious danger)
- Lynch v. Brown, 489 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (duty considerations for landowners)
- Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (comparative negligence considerations where danger is obvious)
- Turner v. Winn-Dixie Food Stores Inc., 651 So.2d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (pothole-type defects and maintenance obligations)
- Regency Lake Apartments Assocs., Ltd. v. French, 590 So.2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (tenant control may create owner-like duties)
- Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (tenant liability independent of landlord)
- Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 505 So.2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (tenant/owner duties to maintain safety)
- Crawford v. Miller, 542 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (open/obvious vs maintenance duties cases)
- McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (obvious hazards and duties analysis)
- Sari v. Madera, 452 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (step-down/open-variance in duty analysis)