Kelley v. Beverly Hills Club Apartments
68 So. 3d 954
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Beverly Hills Club owns/operates a Miami-Dade rental complex; Transitions provides treatment to clients at its facility and rents several units within the complex.
- Transitions assigned Kelley to Apartment 416; two Transitions staff reside at the complex to supervise clients.
- Beverly Hills Club does not receive specific medical information about Transitions clients and does not know which residents are Transitions clients.
- Kelley alleges Beverly Hills Club breached duties by failing to inspect, secure, or otherwise safeguard against risks for residents with psychiatric illness.
- Kelley’s suicide attempt on March 11, 2005 occurred after she had resided at the complex; the trial court granted summary judgment for Beverly Hills Club concluding no duty existed.
- The appellate court affirms, holding there was no duty owed by Beverly Hills Club as a matter of law since it had no custody/knowledge of Kelley or her condition, and the alleged safety measures do not create a foreseeable zone of risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty exists to Kelley based on custodial-like control | Kelley argues BCHC’s knowledge of transition clients creates duty | BCHC had no custody/control or specific knowledge | No duty found |
| Whether BCHC owed a duty due to knowledge of treatment context | Knowledge of Transitions’ treatment creates risk | General group knowledge insufficient | No duty based on generalized knowledge of treatment |
| Whether the absence of individualized knowledge about Kelley precludes duty | BCHC should have foreseen risk from known mental health treatment | No individualized factors; no duty without specific indicators | No duty without Kelley-specific suicidal indicators |
| Whether summary judgment on duty was proper given undisputed facts | Questions of foreseeability and duty should go to trial | Undisputed facts show no duty as a matter of law | Summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (duty defined by foreseeing risk; creates duty only in a foreseeable zone of risk)
- Paddock v. Chacho, 522 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (no liability for suicide absent duty of care in custodial setting)
- Garcia v. Lifemark Hosp. of Fla., 754 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (custodial setting duty to protect patient from self-harm)
- Lawlor v. Orlando, 795 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (psychotherapist duty to safeguard patient differs for outpatient setting)
- Rafferman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 659 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (no duty to prevent suicide absent indicia of self-harm risk)
- Timson v. Juvenile & Jail Facility Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 355 F.App’x 283 (11th Cir. 2009) (absence of suicide indicators negates foreseeable risk)