534 So.2d 812 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988), 87-3075, Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County

Docket Nº:87-3075.
Citation:534 So.2d 812, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2597
Opinion Judge:Author: Baskin
Party Name:Geraldo AMEIJEIRAS and Eneyda Ameijeiras, Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellee.
Attorney:Deutsch & Blumberg; James C. Blecke, for appellants.
Case Date:November 29, 1988
Court:Florida Court of Appeals, Third District
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 812

534 So.2d 812 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988)

13 Fla. L. Weekly 2597

Geraldo AMEIJEIRAS and Eneyda Ameijeiras, Appellants,

v.

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 87-3075.

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District.

November 29, 1988

Page 813

Deutsch & Blumberg, James C. Blecke, Miami, for appellants.

Robert A. Ginsburg, Co. Atty., and Ronald J. Bernstein, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

Geraldo Ameijeiras was shot during an attempted robbery and rendered a paraplegic. The crime occurred while he was jogging on the nature trail at Bird Drive Park. Ameijeiras sued Metropolitan Dade County [Dade County] for damages, alleging that, by permitting the nature trail to become overgrown, Dade County had facilitated the attack. He asserted that homosexual activity, illicit drug dealing and arson attempts had occurred in the park and that Dade County knew of these activities, but failed to provide adequate protection. Pointing to the fact that no violent crimes had been reported in Bird Drive Park during the two years preceding the attack on Ameijeiras, Dade County sought a summary judgment on the ground that the attack on Ameijeiras was not foreseeable, and thus, Dade County had no legal duty to warn or protect Ameijeiras. The trial court granted Dade County's motion and entered final summary judgment. The court found that Dade County did not have sufficient knowledge of similar acts to cause the attack to be foreseeable as a matter of law, and further, that Dade County was entitled to sovereign immunity. Ameijeiras filed an appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. Admiral's Port Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 434 So.2d 887 (Fla.1983); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., Ltd., 405 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So.2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), appeal after remand, 454 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Relyea v. State, 385 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The landowner's duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises. Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla.1986), and 484 So.2d 9 (Fla.1986); School Bd...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP