Background

• Fitzherberts appeal a final summary judgment for Inland regarding a premises-liability claim after Mrs. Fitzherbert tripped on a ramp and adjacent pavement in front of a Marshalls store on October 27, 2007.
• Inland moved for final summary judgment, arguing the ramp/pavement was not a dangerous condition and there was no duty to warn.
• The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding Inland had no duty to warn due to an open-and-obvious condition and that Inland did not owe a duty to maintain the premises as reasonably safe.
• This court applies de novo review to summary judgments and must determine whether there is no genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc. is cited to distinguish duties owed to business invitees and to address the distinction between warning about hazards and maintaining premises.
• The court found Inland failed to provide attachments showing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding its duty to maintain the premises, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 577 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (open/obvious hazard does not discharge maintenance duty; duty to maintain)
• Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368 (Fla.1979) (burden to show no genuine issue of material fact in SJ)
• Sherry v. Regency Ins. Co., 884 So.2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (de novo review of summary judgment order)
• Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) (summary judgment criteria for premises liability)
• Hogan v. Chupka, 579 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (open-and-obvious hazard does not discharge duty to maintain)