Levy v. Home Depot, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3082,86-3082 |
| Citation | 518 So.2d 941,13 Fla. L. Weekly 19 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 19 David S. LEVY and Fay Levy, Appellants, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Anderson, Moss, Russo, Gievers & Cohen, P.A., and Don Russo, Miami, for appellants.
Dixon, Dixon, Nicklaus & Valle and William G. Edwards, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
The Levys appeal a summary final judgment entered in favor of Home Depot. We reverse because genuine issues of material fact exist which must be resolved by a jury.
David Levy was injured when he stepped into a ten-inch gap in an elevated sidewalk in the parking lot adjacent to the Home Depot store in the Midway Mall. At the time of the accident, he was carrying a large carton which obstructed his view of the sidewalk. The parking lot and its sidewalks were common areas of the mall which, according to the terms of Home Depot's lease, were to be maintained by Midway Mall.
Levy brought a negligence action against Home Depot. 1 The complaint alleged that Home Depot had failed to warn Levy of a dangerous condition of which it knew or should have known, and that it had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner. Home Depot moved for summary final judgment on the grounds that: (1) the condition which caused Levy's fall was open and obvious; and (2) it did not have a duty to warn of an open and obvious condition "on adjoining premises not under its control." At the hearing on the motion, Home Depot argued that, even if it had a duty to maintain adjoining premises, it had not breached its duty to warn since the gap in the sidewalk was an open and obvious danger. In opposition, Levy proffered his own affidavit which stated that he was unable to see the sidewalk or the gap because of the carton he was carrying. Levy also relied upon the affidavit of Home Depot's manager who had revealed that, shortly before the date of Levy's accident, he and his staff had inspected the sidewalks adjacent to the store perimeters in order to identify and remedy any safety hazards prior to the store's grand opening. The trial court entered summary final judgment for Home Depot and denied Levy's motion for rehearing.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Home Depot where issues of material fact exist concerning whether Home Depot fulfilled its dual duties to Levy. At the hearing, Home Depot stipulated that Levy was its business invitee. A property owner or occupier has two duties toward invitees: (1) to keep his property in reasonably safe condition and to protect the invitee from dangers of which he is or should be aware; and (2) to warn the invitee of concealed dangers which are or should be known to the owner or occupier and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered by him through the exercise of due care. Spaulding v. City of Melbourne, 473 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The fact that Home Depot was not contractually responsible for the maintenance of common areas, such as the sidewalks in the parking lot, is not dispositive of its duty to maintain its premises in a safe condition. Although, in certain situations, a lessee of a store in a shopping center may be absolved of liability for dangerous conditions in common areas which are contractually relegated to the lessor for maintenance, Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Doe, 454 So.2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the rationale for this exception does not pertain to the instant case. In Federated, no warning given by the lessee could have averted the attack upon the plaintiff by criminals in the shopping center parking lot. "The liability of a lessee for a known static dangerous condition under the lessor's exclusive control ... is simply not analogous to the lessee's liability for criminal acts of third parties occurring in an area contractually under the lessor's exclusive control." Id. at 12. The sidewalk in the parking lot in the instant case was a static condition; however, whether the condition of the sidewalk was dangerous is an unresolved issue of fact. Although the parties agree that Home Depot had no actual knowledge of the gap in the sidewalk, the question remains whether in the exercise of reasonable care Home Depot should have known of the danger. The affidavit of Home Depot's manager raised a reasonable inference of a disputed issue of fact concerning the extent of Home Depot's duty to inspect the approaches to the store and the surrounding areas for hidden dangers.
Moreover, "control is not the sole basis for liability in a slip and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
... ... KIMCO REALTY CORPORATION; and Lowe's Home Center Incorporated, a corporation of the State of North Carolina, ... Corporation, as landlord successor by merger to Price Enterprises, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Third Party Defendant/Forth Party Plaintiff, ... parking attendants). But see, e.g ... Levy v ... Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941 (Fla.Dist.Ct ... App.1987) ... ...
-
Bryant v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
..."obviousness" is the key issue and that a jury must determine whether the condition or the peril is obvious. See Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (question of obviousness of ten-inch gap in sidewalk and "concomitant" duty to warn was a jury question). But cf. Prage......
-
Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp.
...condition regardless of whether the landlord has contractually assumed responsibility to maintain the premises. Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bovis v. 7–Eleven, Inc., 505 So.2d 661, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). For the reasons stated above, we reverse the fina......
-
Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co.
...the Catholic Mutual policy.The Diocese, as an owner and lessor, had an independent duty of care to Soriano. See Levy v. Home Depot, Inc. , 518 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988). In facts that are undisputed, the Diocese incurred liability for having breached that duty. See Northland Cas. C......