Ramsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
124 So. 3d 415
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ramseys sued Home Depot for negligence, alleging duty to maintain premises and warn of hazards; wheel stop in an accessible parking space was claimed dangerous.
- Home Depot moved for summary judgment, arguing the wheel stop was an open and obvious danger and there were no genuine issues of material fact.
- Home Depot relied on engineer Lamb's affidavit detailing dimensions, ADA compliance, and bollard purpose; construction manager Talvey testified bollards protected the sign, not pedestrians.
- Ramseys relied on their expert Anderson and Mrs. Ramsey’s deposition, describing morning accident, visible sign, and wheel stop that matched the parking lot color.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; on appeal, review is de novo to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists.
- The court affirmed, holding the wheel stop was open and obvious and Ramseys failed to show Home Depot breached duty to maintain reasonably safe premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open and obvious hazard? | Ramsey asserted a hidden risk due to wheel stop. | Home Depot argued wheel stop was open and obvious; no warning duty. | Wheel stop was open and obvious; no duty to warn. |
| Duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition | Ramsey contends Home Depot failed to maintain safely. | Home Depot showed compliance with safety standards and maintenance. | No genuine issue of material fact; duty not breached. |
| Did Anderson's conclusory affidavit raise a material fact dispute? | Anderson supported alternative designs and dangers of wheel stops. | Affidavit was conclusory and unsupported by law or standards. | Affidavit insufficient to create factual dispute; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (open and obvious condition no warning duty; not inherently dangerous)
- Aaron v. Logro Corp., 226 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (wheel stops generally not inherently dangerous when visible)
- Palatka Mall, 908 So.2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (example of open and obvious findings in similar context)
- Westchester Exxon v. Valdes, 524 So.2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (owner not insurer of customers’ safety; duty to protect against reasonably foreseeable risks)
- Ricciardelli v. Fla. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 564 So.2d 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (considerations for store design and safety standards)
- K.E.L. Title Ins. Agency, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 58 So.3d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (bare affidavits insufficient to create factual disputes; need reasoning and facts)
- Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC, 18 So.3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (expert affidavits must provide basis for conclusions to raise disputes)