Denson v. SM-Planters Walk Apartments
183 So. 3d 1048
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Denson sued SM-Planters Walk, LLC (owner) and In-sula Property Management, LLC (manager) after slipping on a "slick and glossy" top stair at the apartment complex on June 9, 2012.
- She alleged defendants breached duties to warn of concealed perils and to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no breach and asserting the stairs were not freshly painted as plaintiff claimed.
- Maintenance supervisor Gomez testified stairs were painted circa 2009–2010 using exterior concrete paint; Roy (purchaser) bought paint and anti-skid materials at Home Depot.
- Home Depot receipts (Mar 2010) showed purchases of paint, primer, concrete stain, and four units of anti-skid additive with ten gallons of product. A Behr additive label (submitted by Denson) specified one additive pouch per gallon.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; the appellate court affirmed as to duty to warn (obvious danger doctrine) but reversed as to duty to maintain due to disputed facts about use/mixing of anti-skid additive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had a duty to warn of a concealed danger | Denson: hazard not discoverable; duty to warn | Defendants: condition was open/obvious so no duty to warn | Court: Affirmed—no duty to warn under obvious danger doctrine |
| Whether defendants breached duty to maintain premises safely | Denson: defendants failed to properly use/mix non‑skid additive (insufficient additive for gallons purchased) | Defendants: used appropriate exterior concrete paint and no unsafe condition; stairs not freshly painted | Court: Reversed summary judgment—material factual dispute exists about whether anti‑skid additive was used/mixed properly |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given record evidence | Denson: receipts, label, and testimony create disputed material facts | Defendants: testimony that proper paint was used and receipts not dispositive | Court: Denied summary judgment as to maintenance duty because any doubt precludes summary judgment |
| Causation/liability based on product misuse | Denson: label requires 1 pouch per gallon → four pouches for ten gallons suggests under‑treatment → slippery surface caused fall | Defendants: no evidence of fresh additive misuse; relied on supervisor testimony | Court: Left causation/liability unresolved and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 120 So.3d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (summary judgment standard; draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 124 So.3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (open-and-obvious hazards can negate duty to warn but not necessarily duty to maintain)
- Deese v. McKinnonville Hunting Club, Inc., 874 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (summary judgment standard in negligence actions)
- Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (elements of negligence; duties owed to invitees)
- De Cruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Market, Inc., 117 So.3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (distinguishing duty to warn and duty to maintain)
- Tallent v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC, 137 So.3d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (open-and-obvious vs. maintenance duty dichotomy)
- Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So.3d 204 (Fla. 6th DCA 2012) (open-and-obvious hazards may still give rise to maintenance duty if landowner should foresee harm)
- Lomack v. Mowrey, 14 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (obvious danger discharges duty to warn but not necessarily duty to maintain)