Trainor v. PNC Bank, National Ass'n
211 So. 3d 366
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Janet Trainor, an invitee, used a PNC branch ATM while the parking lot was under construction and followed posted detour signage.
- While walking around a barricade she stepped into a pothole, fell, and suffered fractures and other injuries; she did not see the pothole before stepping in it but could have looked down.
- Trainor sued PNC (owner), Kirby (general contractor), and Williams (construction contractor) alleging breach of duty to warn and breach of duty to maintain; Kirby third-partied Williams for indemnity/contribution and negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the obvious danger (open-and-obvious) doctrine; the trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants on that basis.
- The Fifth District reversed, holding that the obvious danger doctrine may discharge a duty to warn but does not absolve a landowner/possessor of the separate duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
- The court concluded material factual issues remain (e.g., how long the pothole existed, notice, and comparative negligence), precluding summary judgment on the maintenance theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the obvious danger doctrine bar liability? | Trainor: doctrine may not apply because defect was not open and obvious to her and does not absolve duty to maintain. | Defendants: open-and-obvious condition relieves them of liability as a matter of law. | Reversed: obvious danger can discharge duty to warn but not the separate duty to maintain; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Was summary judgment proper on breach-of-maintain theory? | Trainor: disputed factual issues (notice, duration, foreseeability) preclude summary judgment. | Defendants: did not directly contest maintenance theory below via motion. | Reversed: material facts remain about notice/length of existence; cannot grant summary judgment. |
| Do owner, general contractor, and subcontractor owe joint liability for invitee injuries? | Trainor: all in control/possession may be liable for failing to maintain/warn. | Defendants: Kirby/Williams argued lack of duty (not raised below). | Court: control/possession, not mere ownership, determines duty; potential joint liability; duty argument not preserved, so not decided. |
| Does plaintiff's knowledge of hazard negate liability or only raise comparative negligence? | Trainor: knowledge does not negate defendants’ duty to repair; it affects comparative negligence. | Defendants: plaintiff’s failure to observe hazard absolves defendants. | Held: plaintiff knowledge may bar duty to warn but generally raises comparative negligence and does not bar maintenance-based claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (definition and application of obvious danger doctrine)
- Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (open-and-obvious discharges duty to warn but not duty to maintain)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, LLC, 908 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (obvious condition does not relieve duty to repair; raises issue of comparative negligence)
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973) (comparative fault principle informing premises liability apportionment)
- Lotto v. Point E. Two Condo. Corp., 702 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (anticipation of invitee use and foreseeability despite obvious condition)