Duty to Warn vs. Duty to Maintain: What the Difference Means for Your Florida Slip and Fall Lawsuit
Business property owners in Florida have a duty to warn their customers about any potential safety hazard that is not “open and obvious.” Similarly, owners have a duty to maintain their premises in reasonably safe condition. Both of these duties factor into slip and fall cases when a customer suffers a serious injury as the result of a dangerous condition on the business owner’s property. But in the context of a personal injury lawsuit, is it possible the owner can be liable for failing in one of its duties but not the other?
Appeals Court Revives Baseball Fan’s Lawsuit Over Battery Case Fall
The answer is yes. The Florida Second District Court of Appeals recently addressed just such a case. In McWhorter v. Event Services America, Inc., the plaintiff attended a Tampa Bay Rays game at Tropicana Field in 2021. While leaving the game, she passed through the stadium’s entrance rotunda. Less than a minute earlier, a security guard had come through the rotunda, left a small metal battery case on the ground, and then walked a few feet away to pick up some trash. It is unknown why the security guard had left the battery case, which was about 6-by-14 inches, on the ground in the first place.
In any event, the plaintiff tripped and fell over the battery case. She subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company that employed the security guard and exercised responsibility for the stadium entrance. A Florida trial court dismissed the case at summary judgment, however, finding that as a matter of law the defendant violated no duty to warn or duty to maintain the premises under these facts.
The Second District partially disagreed. It agreed there was no duty to warn. But the appellate panel said a jury could find the defendant violated its duty to maintain the premises and award compensation to the plaintiff on that basis. So the Second District returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
There was no duty to warn, the appeals court explained, because the existence of the battery case on the rotunda floor was an “open and obvious” hazard. But even when the hazard is open and obvious, the fact it existed because of the defendant’s actions could still support a “failure to maintain” claim. Here, the court noted, the security guard “inexplicably” left the battery case on an “open floor in a stadium rotunda where crowds of baseball fans ordinarily walk through.” Less than a minute later, the plaintiff tripped and fell. A jury could find that there was no way the plaintiff could have foreseen this accident, and thus the defendant violated its duty to maintain the rotunda in a reasonably safe condition.
Contact a Pasco County Slip & Fall Attorney
Even when you believe that the facts of your accident support a legal determination that the property owner was negligent, you cannot assume that a court will rule in your favor. That is why it is critical to work with a qualified Pasco County slip and fall lawyer who can guide you through the process of bringing and litigating a claim. Contact the offices of Wendy Doyle-Palumbo, Esq., today at (727) 233-2134 to schedule a consultation. We serve clients in Hudson, New Port Richie, and Pasco County.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12948314311882468533