Dampier v. MORGAN TIRE & AUTO, LLC
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4218
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dampier was getting an oil change at Tires Plus on Enterprise Road in Orange City, Florida, when he walked to a McDonald's and crossed a raised planting bed to access a public sidewalk.
- On his return, Dampier tripped on a stump in the planting bed and sustained injuries in the parking lot.
- Dampier alleged the planting bed was a clearly defined walking path and that Tires Plus failed to inspect, maintain, and warn about the stump/planting-bed condition.
- Tires Plus moved for summary judgment, arguing the stump was an open, obvious condition and that the landowner owed no duty to maintain the planting bed for walking as it was not designed for walking.
- Depositions showed the planting bed ran the length of the property, eight to ten feet wide, bordered by a curb, with a public sidewalk beyond; there was no sidewalk from Tires Plus’ front door to the sidewalk, and walking to the sidewalk required either crossing the parking lot or stepping through the planting bed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Tires Plus’ favor, holding the stump was open and obvious and the planting bed was not a dangerous walking surface.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn for open/obvious hazards | Dampier contends Tires Plus had to warn about the stump in the planting bed. | Tires Plus argues the stump is open and obvious, relieving duty to warn, and the bed is not designed for walking. | No duty to warn where hazard is open and obvious. |
| Whether planting bed constitutes a walking path | Planting bed is part of a clearly defined walking path requiring maintenance and warning. | Planting bed not designed for walking; owner has no liability for injuries in such areas. | Planting bed not a walking path; no liability for walking within it. |
| Open/obvious hazard analysis in landscaping | Hazard concealed by landscaping; should be mitigated. | Hazard is open and obvious; owner not liable for maintenance or warning. | Open/obvious hazards may still absolve warning duty but do not require maintenance duty; here the hazard was not dangerous in the context. |
| Duty to maintain for safety of invitees | Owner failed to inspect/maintain the planting bed to remove the stump. | Owner not liable for maintaining planting beds not designed for walking; open and obvious condition does not create liability. | Landowner has no duty to maintain a planting bed used for landscaping as a walking surface. |
| Standard of review for summary judgment | Disputed facts about whether the stump was a dangerous condition. | undisputed that condition was open/obvious and not dangerous. | Court affirmed summary judgment; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Universal City Prop. Mgmt., 779 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (glaringly open/obvious obstacle; open/obvious hazard negates duty to warn)
- Dunn v. City of Melbourne, 841 So.2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (planter area not designed for walking; open/obvious hazard precludes liability)
- Prager v. Marks Bros., 483 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (unfinished flowerbox not a dangerous condition requiring warning)
- Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (de novo review standard for summary judgment rulings)
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (open and obvious hazards may relieve duty to warn)
- Gorin v. City of St. Augustine, 595 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (open and obvious hazards standard; street/sidewalk considerations)
- Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So.2d 75 (Fla. 1983) (difference in floor levels not inherently dangerous under certain conditions)