Aaron v. Palatka Mall, LLC
Citation | 908 So.2d 574 |
Decision Date | 12 August 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 5D04-554.,5D04-554. |
Parties | Diane L. AARON, Appellant, v. PALATKA MALL, L.L.C., d/b/a Interlachen Mall, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Marianne R. Howanitz of Daniel L. Hightower, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.
Hinda Klein and Alejandro (Alex) Suarez, of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellee.
Diane Aaron appeals a final summary judgment in the premises liability action she filed to recover damages caused by her fall on a parking lot bumper on property owned by Palatka Mall, L.L.C., doing business as Interlachen Mall, The trial court held that there was no liability on the part of Palatka Mall because the bumper was open and obvious. The issue we must resolve is whether it was appropriate to enter summary judgment in favor of Palatka Mall based on the obvious danger doctrine when: 1) Aaron alleges that Palatka Mall breached its duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition; and 2) evidence is present in the record that the alleged dangerous condition was located in a poorly lit parking lot and the accident occurred late at night when it was drizzling rain. Because material issues of fact exist, we conclude that the final summary judgment was improvidently rendered, and we reverse.
Aaron filed suit alleging that Palatka Mall was negligent because it breached both its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and its duty to warn her of the dangerous condition, which Aaron claims is the parking lot bumper. As the litigation progressed, Aaron's deposition was taken wherein she testified that she went to Palatka Mall at approximately 9:15 p.m. Prior to that time it had been raining, but upon her arrival at the mall the weather had "cleared up to where it was a light drizzle, misty, drizzly rain." Aaron testified that she parked in the spot closest to the store she intended to enter so she would not get wet. She got out of her car, walked around the shopping cart return, and tripped over the parking lot bumper that she did not know was there. She testified that there were only two bumpers in the entire parking lot and that the bumper she tripped over was almost the same color as the parking lot surface. The lighting in the parking lot was "very poor" on the night she fell, and she simply could not see the bumper she tripped over.
Palatka Mall filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the bumper was open and obvious and, therefore, it was not liable for any injuries to Aaron. Aaron responded with an affidavit wherein she testified that the parking lot bumper was a dangerous condition on the premises because: 1) it was almost the same color as the rest of the parking lot; 2) she tripped and fell late at night and there was insufficient lighting to allow her to see where she was going; 3) it was raining at the time she fell; and 4) there were only two bumpers in the entire parking lot and there was no reason why the bumpers were placed where they were and not placed uniformly in the rest of the lot. She also testified that she was looking where she was going when she fell. The trial court granted Palatka Mall's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that
The obvious danger doctrine provides that an owner or possessor of land is not liable for injuries to an invitee caused by a dangerous condition on the premises when the danger is known or obvious to the injured party, unless the owner or possessor should anticipate the harm despite the fact that the dangerous condition is open and obvious. Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309 (Fla.1986). This doctrine rests upon the generally accepted notion that owners and possessors of real property should be legally permitted to assume that those entering their premises will perceive conditions that are open and obvious to them upon the ordinary use of their senses. Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In order to determine whether the doctrine applies in a given case, the courts are required to consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the alleged dangerous condition. Id.
(citing Pittman).
When an injured party alleges that the owner or possessor breached the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, an issue of fact is generally raised as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether the owner or possessor should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury despite the fact it was open and obvious. See Lotto v. Point E. Two Condo. Corp., Inc., 702 So.2d 1361, 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
() ; Hogan v. Chupka, 579 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Hence, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment regarding the theory alleged by Aaron that Palatka Mall breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
As to the allegation that Palatka Mall breached its duty to warn, we have considered all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident revealed by the evidence in the record. We have done so in accordance with the rather strict standard of review that requires we consider the evidence contained in the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if the slightest doubt regarding the existence of material issues of fact arises, the summary judgment must be reversed. See Krol. Where the issues are generally fact-intensive, as in negligence actions, summary judgment should be entered with great caution. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)
() (citation omitted); Feagle v. Purvis, 891 So.2d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) () (citation omitted); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tracz, 799 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 5th DCA ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanford v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., Case No. 3:16-cv-1578-J-34PDB
...Apr. 29, 2005) (quoting Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Perez-Melendez, 855 So. 2d 624, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)); Aaron v. Palatka Mall, LLC, 908 So. 2d 574, 577-78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Regency Lake Apartments Assocs., Ltd. v. French, 590 So. 2d 970, 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("The discharge of the d......
-
Abbott-Davis v. United States
...... raised as to whether the condition was dangerous.”). (citation omitted); Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C. ,. 908 So.2d 574, 578 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (same). . ......
-
Jones v. Stewart, 2016-CA-0329
...As one court has noted, "[h]idden and concealed dangers are the antithesis of open and obvious dangers." Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C ., 908 So.2d 574, 579 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005).Moreover, the evidence that was introduced on the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment further su......
-
Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp.
...Co., 959 So.2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574, 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Lynch v. Brown, 489 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192, 1193–94 (Fla. 5th......