274 So. 3d 1219
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant tripped on a parking lot wheel stop located near the building egress and was injured; she sued Shelmar Property Owner's Association for negligence.
- Appellant alleged the wheel stop placement created an unreasonably dangerous condition and violated the Florida Building Code and industry walking-surface standards.
- Appellant submitted photographs and a forensic engineer's affidavit asserting a Code and industry-standard violation; appellee submitted an affidavit asserting wheel stops were present when it acquired the property and there were no prior reports of accidents.
- Appellee moved for summary judgment, relying principally on the open-and-obvious danger doctrine and arguing invitees should reasonably observe wheel stops.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for appellee without a hearing; appellant’s motion for rehearing was denied and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to maintain premises / code violation | Wheel stop placed at egress violated Florida Building Code and industry standards, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition | Wheel stops are open-and-obvious features; appellee did not breach duty because invitees should observe and avoid them | Material fact exists whether placement violated duty — code violation evidence raises prima facie negligence; summary judgment improper |
| Open-and-obvious doctrine as complete defense | Even if open/obvious, owner still owes duty to maintain safe premises; foreseeability and maintenance remain factual issues | The open-and-obvious nature absolves or mitigates liability as matter of law | Open-and-obvious does not fully discharge duty; factual questions remain whether owner should have anticipated injury despite obviousness |
| Summary judgment procedure (rule 1.510(c)) | (not argued by appellant) Trial court nonetheless erred by entering final summary judgment without required hearing | Court entered judgment without hearing | Concurring opinion notes trial court committed fundamental error by failing to hold the hearing required by rule 1.510(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (landowner duties to invitees)
- Trainor v. PNC Bank, N.A., 211 So. 3d 366 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (open-and-obvious doctrine does not fully discharge owner’s maintenance duty)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (factual issues often exist despite open-and-obvious conditions)
- Holland v. Baguette, Inc., 540 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (building-code violation is prima facie evidence of negligence)
- Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 124 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (expert opinion must reference specific code or standard to create a factual dispute)
- Chiu v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 242 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (trial court must hold hearing before entering final summary judgment under rule 1.510(c))