The term “slip and fall” is generally used when a person slips or trips, and falls on another individual’s property. Slip and fall accidents are a subset of premises liability claims. Finally, Judge Makar discussed previous decisions in which other appellate courts, from Florida as well as other states, have determined that juries rather than judges should resolve factual disputes as to the dangerousness of unmarked speed bumps, and presumably, other conditions. Smith may not have been looking where she was walking, that should have also been left to the jury to assign any comparative negligence to her. And while the dissent recognized that Ms. In other words, while the condition may have been open and obvious, the issue of whether the unpainted speed bump constituted a failure to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition is one that should have been left to a jury rather than decided as a matter of law by an appellate court. As discussed above, Florida has a rich history of obviating the duty to warn when a condition is open and obvious while not relieving the property owner’s obligation to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.Īs recognized by Judge Makar in his dissenting opinion, the appellate’s majority decision invades the province of the jury. In determining that the property breached no duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, the court focused on the speed bump’s “open and obvious” condition. Here, the appellate court’s analysis is a little more dubious. The appellate court then went on to analyze the trial court’s decision that the unpainted speed bump did not rise to the level of a failure to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. Accordingly, the court determined the property owner did not breach its duty to warn Ms. Smith had been to the property in the past and knew speed bumps existed in the apartment complex. Smith and the property owner’s knowledge of the condition was equal to Ms. Accordingly, the court determined that the condition was open and obvious and could have easily been discovered by Ms. It noted that the speed bump was not otherwise defective and did not have any other dangerous characteristics. While discussing the property owner’s duty to warn, it focused that the alleged dangerousness of the speed bump was the fact that it was unpainted. In its analysis to determine whether the trial court correctly applied Florida’s new summary judgment standard the court analyzed the landowner’s duty to warn and its duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. Smith did acknowledge that she was not looking ahead while walking as she was looking for a bank of mailboxes in an effort to help her friend. Consequently, she did not see the unpainted speed bump and tripped over it. Smith alleged that the unpainted speed bump was partly concealed by a shade from a tree. Eileen Smith was helping a friend move out of her apartment complex when she tripped over an unpainted speed bump and injured herself. Westdale involved a trip and fall over a speed bump at an apartment complex. Consequently, even if a landowner warns of a dangerous condition or that condition is open and obvious, a property owner may still be responsible for injuries to others if the property is not maintained in a reasonably safe condition. This is because the duty to warn and the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition are two separate and distinct duties. Where a dangerous condition may obviate the need to warn others of that condition, it does not discharge the landowner’s obligation to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. In addition to the duty to warn, Florida law has historically recognized a property owner’s obligation to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. Duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition This obligation can be discharged if the dangerous condition is open and obvious. What is the duty to warn?įlorida law recognizes a property owner’s “ duty ” as its responsibility to warn others of concealed dangers that are or should be known to the owner and which are unknown and cannot be reasonably discovered by those visiting the property. In doing so, the court determined that the landowner had no duty to warn of the condition. A Florida appellate court recently determined that an unpainted speed bump in an apartment complex was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |