Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 July 1980 |
Docket Number | 79-1409,JAI-ALA,Nos. 79-962,INC,s. 79-962 |
Citation | 386 So.2d 4 |
Parties | Agustin FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. MIAMI, a Florida Corporation, and Edison Parking Corporation ofFlorida, a Florida Corporation, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for appellant.
Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and Betsy E. Hartley; Pyszka, Kessler & Adams and Phillip D. Blackmon, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Agustin Fernandez's complaint for damages against Miami Jai-Alai, Inc. and Edison Parking Corporation of Florida was dismissed with prejudice. Fernandez alleged that he went to the fronton premises owned by Miami Jai-Alai, Inc. to watch and wager on the jai-alai games and while in the inadequately lighted parking lot (operated by Edison by virtue of a contract with Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.) was assaulted and stabbed by unknown persons who set about to rob him. He alleged also that the defendants (a) knew that like crimes of violence had previously occurred in the parking lot; (b) had reason to anticipate and foresee that such crimes would occur in the future; (c) knew or should have known that a large percentage of the fronton patrons carried substantial amounts of money; (d) knew that the premises were in a high crime area; (e) provided an inadequate number of security guards; (f) provided inadequately trained security guards; (g) knew or should have known from the coexistence of these factors that persons like Fernandez's assailants would be tempted to take a chance, not at jai-alai, but at the more serious game of robbery; and (h) despite their knowledge, failed to warn Fernandez of the danger.
We agree with Fernandez that his complaint stated a cause of action and should not have been dismissed. Among the duties owed by the defendants to Fernandez, a business invitee, is the duty to guard against subjecting such invitee to dangers which the defendants might have reasonably foreseen. Sabatelli v. Omni International Hotels, Inc., 379 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Company, 305 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So.2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Included among those dangers is a criminal assault by a third party. Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So.2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pitts v. Metropolitan Dade County, 374 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Company, supra. See also Concord Florida, Inc. v. Lewin, 341 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). If an intervening criminal act is foreseeable, the original negligence may be found to be the proximate cause of the damage sustained. Vining v. Avis Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 354 So.2d 54 (Fla.1977); Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Company, Inc., 339 So.2d 175 (Fla.1976); Gulfstar, Inc. v. Advance Mortgage Corporation, 376 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. v. Culpepper, 367 So.2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Angell v. F. Avanzini Lumber Company, 363 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Fernandez's complaint alleged the requisite foreseeability. 1 The danger which the defendants allegedly could foresee is the danger of robbery of a patron, and a foreseeable consequence of that danger is the injury alleged to have been suffered by Fernandez. The present case is unlike Graham v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 240 So.2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), and Wometco Theatres Corporation v. Rath, 123 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), where the violent consequences of a foreseeable intervening criminal act are not foreseeable. 2 Nor is the present case one in which the plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the defendants as a result of the unpredictable behavior of a third party. Compare Warner v. Florida Jai Alai, Inc., 221 So.2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), and Reynolds v. Deep South Sports, Inc., 211 So.2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) ( ) with Sabatelli v. Omni International Hotels, Inc., supra, and Sparks v. Ober, supra ( ). 3 Concededly, an owner of a business establishment has no duty to protect his patrons from all crime, see Drake v. Sun Bank & Trust Company of St. Petersburg, 377 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lipkin v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
...parties. See, e.g., Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So.2d 599, 599–600 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) ; Fernandez v. Miami Jai–Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) ; Rotbart v. Jordan Marsh Co., 305 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974) ; Johnson v. Hatoum, 239 So.2d 22, 24......
-
Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Horne
...attenuated of cases, e.g., cases where landowners are held liable for criminal acts of strangers, see, e.g., Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), there still must be some element of control upon which to predicate liability. 3 At the time of the accident, Potam......
-
Colon v. Twitter, Inc.
...the special relationship exception to the general rule of non-liability for third-party misconduct."); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc. , 386 So.2d 4, 5-6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) ("If an intervening criminal act is foreseeable, the original negligence may be found to be the proximate cause of t......
-
Antrum v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
...criminal acts of a third party. See, e.g., Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johnstoneaux, 395 So.2d 599 (Fla.App.1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4 (Fla.App.1980); Kraustrunk v. Chicago Housing Authority, 95 Ill.App.3d 529, 51 Ill.Dec. 15, 420 N.E.2d 429 (1981); Atamian v. Supe......