Robert-Blier v. STATEWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., 4D03-4932.

• Decision Date: 05 January 2005
• Docket Number: No. 4D03-4932.,4D03-4932.
• Citation: 890 So.2d 522
• Parties: Denise ROBERT-BLIER and Pierre Blier, Appellants, v. STATEWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

890 So.2d 522

Denise ROBERT-BLIER and Pierre Blier, Appellants, v. STATEWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 4D03-4932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 5, 2005.

Joel S. Perwin of Joel S. Perwin, P.A., Miami, and Aronovitz & Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

FARMER, C.J.

In broad terms the issue raised here is whether a security company hired by a condominium association can be held liable to a third party visiting the premises for injuries caused by an assailant. More specifically, however, the real question is whether an independent contractor hired by the owner of premises to provide some — but not full — security services can be liable to the victim for failing to do more than it contracted to do. We decide in favor of the contractor.

Under the terms of the oral agreement with the association, the contractor agreed to provide one unarmed guard to patrol the community of several buildings and adjoining parking areas, to escort residents to their homes upon request, and to observe and report suspicious incidents. No other services were expected or intended by this agreement. A visitor in the parking lot of one of the community's buildings was forced into her car, driven off the premises, and raped. She and her husband sued the contractor for failing to provide more security than the association hired it to give. Plaintiffs also sued the association. That claim was settled before trial.

It is not disputed that the association owed a duty to visitors to protect or warn them of known dangers in the common areas. The contractor was engaged to provide only very limited services, however, the nature of which can only with imagination be thought of as security services. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the association contracted only for the appearance of security.

With not a little hyperbole, the contractor asserted that it did not owe any duty in tort to plaintiffs. More narrowly, however, it also insisted that it could not be liable to plaintiffs for this tort. We agree with this more limited assertion.

A threshold issue in negligence is whether defendant owed any duty to the plaintiff. Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla.2003). It is a question of law whether any duty in tort exists. McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992). A duty may arise from the general facts of a case when one undertakes to provide a service to others and "thereby assumes a duty to act carefully and not to put others at an undue risk of harm." Clay Elec., 873 So.2d at 1186; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965).

There is no evidence that the contractor ever undertook by any affirmative act to assume the association's duty to protect its residents or its guests....