127 So. 3d 814
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Skala sued Lyons Heritage Corp., Sean Clark, and Sean Clark Contracting, Inc. for negligence after a trip-and-fall on construction debris in a Lyons-owned job site garage.
- Skala, a tile setter, was asked to inspect the quality of work in a home under construction and to estimate what could be done to satisfy the homeowner, not to install tile under a contract.
- On entering the home through the garage due to debris and open materials, Skala tripped on debris and sustained complex fractures in both arms.
- Lyons Heritage moved for summary judgment, arguing the dangerous conditions were obvious and the owner was not liable; the trial court granted summary judgment for Lyons.
- The court reversed and remanded, holding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Lyons should have anticipated harm despite an obvious danger, and that the evidence viewed in Skala's favor supported trial on duty and breach.
- The opinion discusses whether a landowner owes a duty to maintain premises for a business invitee and whether the obvious-danger exception applies, with consideration of Skala’s route choice and potential comparative-negligence issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and breach for a business invitee premises condition | Lyons failed to maintain a reasonably safe condition for a business invitee. | Dangers were obvious; owner not liable absent anticipation of harm. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether Lyons should have anticipated harm from Skala using the garage route | Owner should have anticipated harm due to entry through the debris-filled garage. | Obvious dangers do not create liability absent anticipation. | Jury question for foreseeability and breach. |
| Impact of Skala's knowledge/assumption of risk on comparative negligence | Open and obvious hazards may still support liability; duty to warn not at issue. | Assumption of risk and comparative negligence to be decided by jury. | Jury to determine comparative negligence; no conclusory summary judgment on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105 (Fla.2005) (duty of care and questions of law in negligence)
- Strickland v. Timco Aviation Servs., Inc., 66 So.3d 1002 (Fla.1st DCA 2011) (premises-liability duty; jury questions when material facts exist)
- Ahl v. Stone Sw., Inc., 666 So.2d 922 (Fla.1st DCA 1995) (landowner should foresee harm despite known/obvious danger; exceptions to obvious-danger doctrine)
- DeCruz-Haymer v. Festival Food Mkt., Inc., 117 So.3d 885 (Fla.4th DCA 2013) (obvious vs. latent dangers; owner’s duty to warn limited when danger is open/obvious)
- Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. Day & Co., 190 So.2d 803 (Fla.2d DCA 1966) (summary-judgment standard: genuine disputes preclude judgment)
- Taylor v. Tolbert Enters., 439 So.2d 991 (Fla.1st DCA 1983) (premises liability; jury question for obvious hazards)
- Roberts v. Dacra Design Assocs., 766 So.2d 1184 (Fla.3d DCA 2000) (duty to warn and scope of warning when reasonable)
- Kagan v. Eisenstadt, 98 So.2d 370 (Fla.3d DCA 1957) (duty to warn or inform about open hazards in certain contexts)
- Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So.2d 945 (Fla.4th DCA 1997) (quoting duty/possession controlling duty for safety)