Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2486,84-2486 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1370,471 So.2d 1296 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1370 Lauri Sue LOMILLO and Santiago Lomillo, her husband, Appellants, v. HOWARD JOHNSONS COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bergman & Jacobs and Richard H. Bergman, North Miami Beach, for appellants.
Spencer & Taylor and W. Thomas Spencer, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
The summary judgment for the defendant, which was bottomed on the trial court's ruling that, as a matter of law, a robbery was not foreseeable on the defendant's premises, is reversed upon a holding that the defendant did not conclusively show a lack of foreseeability where the record reflects that there was a substantial non-remote history of similar crimes (a) at the adjacent motel which, although not owned and operated by the entity that owns and operates the defendant-restaurant, bears the same name as the defendant and shares certain services with the defendant and (b) in the immediate vicinity. See Green Companies v. Divincenzo, 432 So.2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Despite appellee's urging to the contrary, this court's statement in Admiral's Port Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983), that "[e]vidence of similar crimes committed off the premises ... is not probative of foreseeability," must be read in the light of the facts of that case, which showed that the past violent crimes had occurred "substantial distances away from the premises." In our view, it is a question of fact whether, even though by a stroke of good fortune a defendant's actual premises had not theretofore been the site of violent crime, the defendant could nonetheless foresee its likelihood based upon the fact that his surrounding and immediate neighbors had a substantial history of being victimized by such crime.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Po Folks, Inc.
...from violent criminal conduct which is reasonably foreseeable. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33 (Fla.1983); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Odice v. Pearson, 549 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). This foreseeability requirement can be met by proving that th......
-
Czerwinski v. Sunrise Point Condominium
...the trial court erred in ruling that the attack on the appellant was not foreseeable as a matter of law. See Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., 405 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA REVERSED AND REMANDED. ...
-
Harper v. Tuscany Place Condominium Ass'n, Inc.
...here. 540 So.2d at 201. See also Salerno v. Hart Finance Corporation, 521 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Company, 471 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). I would reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings. ...
-
Andreu v. Citicorp. Sav. of Florida, 90-1420
...at same time of day and under similar weather conditions, admissible to show notice of dangerous conditions); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (evidence of similar crimes in vicinity of attack admissible to demonstrate foreseeability of attack). See generall......
-
Premises liability: a notable rift in the law of foreseeable crimes.
...landowner's premises in order to be considered probative. (25) Oddly, the court went the other way in Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), by holding that off-premises crimes might contribute to a foreseeability analysis, so long as they did not occur "s......
-
Premises liability.
...crimes as irrelevant to the foreseeability of a crime in a nonresidential setting. He sees Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Company, 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (evidence of off-premises crime relevant to the foreseeability of a criminal attack on nonresidential restaurant premises), as an......