Craig v. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., 92-3681

• Decision Date: 11 February 1994
• Docket Number: No. 92-3681,92-3681
• Citation: 631 So.2d 375
• Parties: 19 Fla. L. Weekly D325 Gary Paul CRAIG and Elizabeth Craig, Appellants, v. GATE MARITIME PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 375

631 So.2d 375

19 Fla. L. Weekly D325

Gary Paul CRAIG and Elizabeth Craig, Appellants, v. GATE MARITIME PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 92-3681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

Feb. 11, 1994.

Raymond I. Booth III, Eddie Easa Farah, Farah & Farah, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.

Daniel C. Shaughnessy and Samuel H. Lanier, Coker, Myers, Schickel, Cooper & Sorenson, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

WOLF, Judge.

Gary Craig and Elizabeth Craig, plaintiffs in a liability action, appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. (Gate). We find that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment and reverse.

The U.S. Marine Corps has a ship at Blount Island. The ship contains equipment necessary for emergency deployment. The Marine Corps contracted with Bendix Field Engineering Corporation (Bendix) for maintenance and repair of that equipment. One month prior to contracting with Bendix for this job, the marines leased 59.1 acres and 256,000 square feet of building space at Blount Island from Gate. The purpose of this lease was to provide the marines with a land-based facility at which Bendix could perform the maintenance and repair services. Bendix was responsible for moving the equipment from the ship (tanks, bulldozers, cargo containers) and over the roads to the repair sites.

The lease with the marines required Gate to provide security services for the leased premises. Gate contracted with Gray's Guard Service, for whom appellant, Gary Craig, worked. When equipment was removed from the ship at the Jacksonville Port Authority facility (JPA), it would be driven through a gate separating JPA and Gate property. It would then reach an intersection that was shaped like a T. This intersection was more than one mile from the ship, and two miles from the guard shack manned by Gray's Guard Service. It was at this intersection where Craig was injured.

Craig was injured on January 31, 1989 at a few minutes after 6:00 in the morning. It was dark, foggy, and drizzly at the time. It was Craig's first or second night working security on the island. He was traveling at a speed estimated to be 35 m.p.h. to 45 m.p.h. (speed limit was 30 or 40 m.p.h.). Craig did not see the unmarked intersection, and collided with a roll of steel matting adjacent to the roadway. The matting was used to protect heavy equipment from digging sand when it made the turn. The steel matting had been rolled up and placed alongside the road by Bendix approximately two days before the accident.

Craig filed a complaint against Gate, alleging that as owner of the property, Gate negligently failed to provide adequate warnings of the hidden dangers it was aware of or should have been aware of at the time of the accident, and failed to reasonably delineate the traveled portion of the road from adjacent open fields. Eventually, Gate filed a motion for final summary judgment, and alleged that the road was deliberately unpaved for travel by military vehicles. The maintenance of the road and upkeep of the road for use by military vehicles was undertaken by the government or its subcontractor, Bendix, according to the motion. Additionally, Gate alleged that the road was relimerocked several days before the accident, the traveled portion of the road was clearly delineated from the surrounding land and the existence of the steel matting was clearly observable in the open field.

The evidence presented at the summary judgment hearing concerning the control of the roads included a copy of the lease between Gate and the marines. The description of the leased premises specifically excluded roads and utility facilities otherwise within the leased premises. The lease required Gate to maintain the access roads as to normal wear and tear. The lease also requires Gate to furnish maintenance of unpaved roads beyond normal wear and tear if requested by the government. Gate retained the right to enter the premises for inspection and to make repairs. Depositions presented also indicated that Gate's general manager, Mr. Mantia, used the dirt roads when he drove around daily to inspect the premises. The deposition testimony of Mr. Mantia, indicated that the government never requested Gate to maintain the dirt road in question. He also stated that he did not interpret the lease to place maintenance responsibilities on Gate.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact.

The main issue before the court pertaining to the propriety of granting the summary judgment is what duty, if any, is owed by a commercial lessor to invitees upon the leased premises. ¹

Summary judgments should only be granted where it is demonstrated that there exists no issues of material fact. Hancock v. Department of Corrections, 585 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 75 (Fla.1992). The movant's proof must be conclusive, such that all reasonable inferences which may be drawn in favor of the opposing party are overcome. Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40, 43-44 (Fla.1966); Lenhal Realty, Inc. v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp., 615 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). "[I]f the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper." Holland v. Verheul, 583 So.2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In the instant case, there are disputed issues of material fact concerning the level of control maintained over the road by appellee.

...