Wolf v. Sam's East, Inc.
132 So. 3d 305
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Sherwin Wolf tripped on an above-ground tree root while crossing a landscaping area in a Sam’s Club parking lot and was injured.
- Landscaping areas contained trees, grass, mulch and were a few feet wide; concrete walkways were provided nearby for crossing but Wolf chose a shorter path across the landscaping.
- Wolf admitted he knew walkways existed and that trees were present but claimed the roots were obscured and Sam’s Club failed to warn or remove them.
- Sam’s Club disclosed two prior trips over roots in the three years before the incident and used a contracted landscaper; extraordinary work like root removal required a special request.
- Trial court initially denied summary judgment; after reconsideration and reliance on Dampier, the court entered final summary judgment for Sam’s Club. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to maintain landscaping safe for walking | Sam’s Club had duty to remove/trim protruding roots in landscaping | No duty to make planting beds safe for pedestrian use when walkways are provided | No duty; planting bed not a dangerous condition as matter of law |
| Duty to warn of latent danger | Roots were obscured by grass/leaves; Sam’s Club should have warned | Danger was open or obvious and walkways made safe alternative available | No duty to warn; condition open/obvious given landscaping context |
| Effect of prior similar accidents | Prior trips show Sam’s Club should have anticipated harm despite obviousness | Prior incidents insufficient because area was not intended for walking | Prior incidents did not create duty here; different from cases where falls occurred in intended walking areas |
| Applicability of precedent (Dampier/Taylor line) | Plaintiff distinguishes facts, argues visibility and hazard were not obvious | Defendant invokes Dampier and related cases holding planting beds not for walking | Court applied Dampier/Taylor line and found those cases controlling; planting beds not dangerous as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So.3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (planting beds and their natural features generally not dangerous conditions when not used for walking)
- Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (states obvious danger doctrine for invitees)
- Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So.3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (discussion of landowner duties to invitees)
- City of Melbourne v. Dunn, 841 So.2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (planting beds not intended for walking; limited liability)
- Taylor v. Universal City Prop. Mgmt., 779 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (persons held to know planters present walking hazards)
- Prager v. Marks Bros. Co., 483 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (planting bed precedent)
- K.G. v. Winter Springs Cmty. Evangelical Congregational Church, 509 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (planting bed precedent)
- Williams v. Madden, 588 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (prior accidents can show foreseeability when area intended for walking)
- Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So.3d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)