Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc.
164 So. 3d 120
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Cynthia Cook attended a Bay Area Renaissance Festival and was directed to park in an overflow lot; an unpaved city-owned walkway connected the lot to the festival entrance.
- After attending the festival, Cook tripped on an exposed pipe in the unpaved walkway and cut her foot; her view of the pipe was unobstructed and others (including her husband) had warned her immediately before the fall.
- A Bay Area employee later removed the pipe from the walkway without obtaining permission from the landowner.
- Cook sued Bay Area for negligence in failing to maintain the premises in a safe condition; Bay Area moved for summary judgment arguing it lacked control over the injury site.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bay Area; Cook appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bay Area exercised control over the walkway (premises liability) | Bay Area used adjacent overflow parking, directed attendees, and employees removed the pipe — evidence of control | Bay Area argued it did not have control of the city-owned walkway and thus no duty | There is a genuine issue of material fact whether Bay Area exercised control; remand for jury determination |
| Whether an open-and-obvious hazard negates duty | Even if obvious, a possessor can still be liable if harm was foreseeable; warnings do not automatically absolve liability | The pipe was open and obvious and Cook knew of it, so no duty to warn | Foreseeability and adequacy of warnings are jury questions; open-and-obvious status does not resolve liability as a matter of law |
| Whether gratuitous warnings from others absolve defendant | Warnings received by Cook do not eliminate defendant's duty if harm was foreseeable | Warnings show actual knowledge and negate duty | Whether warnings were sufficient to absolve Bay Area is for the jury |
| Whether the condition was "dangerous" such that failure to maintain creates liability | The exposed pipe could be a dangerous condition creating liability | If the condition was not dangerous, no liability | Whether the pipe was a dangerous condition (in the foreseeability context) is a jury question |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (standards for summary judgment)
- Metsker v. Carefree/Scott Fetzer Co., 90 So. 3d 973 (control, not title, determines duty to repair)
- Goss v. Human Servs. Assocs., Inc., 79 So. 3d 127 (control by use can create duty)
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So. 2d 1309 (possessor may still owe duty despite open-and-obvious condition)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 574 (foreseeability can overcome open-and-obvious defense)
- Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So. 3d 204 (open-and-obvious hazard defense discussed)
- De Cruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Mkt., Inc., 117 So. 3d 885 (dangerous condition and foreseeability jury question)