THE LAS OLAS HOLDING CO. v. MICHAEL DEMELLA a/p/r of the ESTATE OF ALANNA DEMELLA
228 So. 3d 97
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- An intoxicated driver (BAC ~3× legal limit) drove off Sagamore Road, crossed a curb and sidewalk, through bushes, narrowly missed a palm tree/utility pole, and struck Riverside Hotel’s pool cabana, collapsing a concrete column and killing the decedent (hotel guest).
- Plaintiff (personal representative of decedent) sued driver and Riverside for negligence; jury apportioned 85% fault to driver and 15% to Riverside, awarding ~$24M total and ~$3.6M from Riverside.
- Plaintiff’s theory: the road’s curve created a foreseeable risk to the cabana; Riverside should have installed additional barriers (e.g., palm trees) to protect the cabana.
- Plaintiff presented aerial photos, testimony about speeding on Sagamore Road, some former employee complaints, and an expert who opined additional vegetation/barriers might have prevented the crash.
- Riverside presented traffic- and structural-engineering experts: the curve, sightlines, lane widths, and historical crash data showed no prior off-road accidents in ~49 years; the cabana complied with codes and already had a curb, sidewalk, hedges, a palm tree, and reinforced concrete columns.
- Trial court denied Riverside’s motions for directed verdict; jury found Riverside partially liable. On appeal the Fourth District reversed, holding the trial court should have granted Riverside’s directed verdict motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty — did Riverside owe a duty to persons inside the cabana to protect against vehicles leaving Sagamore Road? | The road’s curve and known speeding made off-road crashes foreseeable and thus created a duty to protect the cabana. | No specific dangerous condition on Riverside’s premises was foreseeable to Riverside as to occupants inside the cabana; no history of off-road crashes; road met standards. | No duty as a matter of law: placement of cabana did not create a foreseeable risk to people inside it. |
| Breach — if a duty existed, did Riverside breach it by failing to add barriers (e.g., palm trees)? | Riverside failed to take additional reasonable precautions that could have prevented this accident. | Riverside had reasonable protections (curb, sidewalk, hedges, palm tree, reinforced concrete columns), complied with codes, and attempted traffic mitigation. | No breach as a matter of law; existing precautions were legally sufficient. |
| Proximate cause — was Riverside’s conduct a legal cause of death? | Failure to add barriers was a proximate cause contributing to collapse and death. | The driver’s extreme intoxication and improbable chain of events were an intervening, unforeseeable cause severing proximate causation. | Driver’s conduct was a superseding, unforeseeable cause; proximate causation to Riverside absent as a matter of law. |
| Trial conduct — were plaintiff’s counsel’s opening/closing remarks (disparaging defense / asking jury to value life monetarily) reversible? | Comments were proper advocacy to demonstrate harm and seek damages. | Comments were improper, inflammatory, and warranted mistrial. | Appellate court expressed concern and cautioned against such remarks but did not need to decide mistrial issue due to reversal on directed verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (foreseeability/zone-of-risk duty gatekeeping; courts may decide proximate cause when only one inference is reasonable)
- Macias v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 507 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (utility not liable for remote possibility of vehicle leaving roadway to hit pole absent additional evidence of danger)
- Graham v. Langley, 683 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (no duty to protect patrons from vehicles driven through storefront where such incidents were not reasonably foreseeable)
- L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reasonableness/breach usually jury question but may be decided as matter of law if facts undisputed)
- Chirillo v. Granicz, 199 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2016) (court may decide proximate cause without jury when evidence supports only a single reasonable inference)
- Springtree Props., Inc. v. Hammond, 692 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1997) (absence of accidents is relevant to foreseeability)
- Bosket v. Broward Cty. Hous. Auth., 676 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (intervening cause doctrine relieves defendant when intervening act is independent, not set in motion by defendant, and unforeseeable)
- Kaid v. Store Cent. Food Mkt., Inc., 668 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (premises liability pleading requirements for duty, breach, and proximate cause)