In PAULETTE DE CRUZ-HAYMER v. FESTIVAL FOOD MARKET, INC., d/b/a BRAVO SUPERMARKET, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1581a (Fla. 4DCA 2013), the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in this slip and fall personal injury case held that an open and obvious danger does not discharge a property owner from its duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe manner.
Florida Obvious Danger Doctrine
The obvious danger doctrine relieves a property owner from liability for injuries that are obvious and known to an injured party. The test is not whether the object is obvious but whether the dangerous condition of the object is obvious. In this case, a customer tripped on a rumpled mat at the only entrance and exit of a grocery store. The trial court granted summary judgment to the grocery store on the basis of the obvious danger doctrine finding that the customer was negligent in not avoiding the mat.
In reversing the trial courth, the Fourth District Court of Appeal determined that a landowner owes two independent duties to its invitees. First, a landowner must maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner. Secondly, a landowner must give a warning to invitees of concealed dangers. While the open and obvious nature of the rumpled mat may eliminate the duty of the grocery store to warn the customer of the mat, it does not affect the requirement that the store must maintain the mat in a safe manner. Under these facts, since the mat was located at the only entrance and exit of the store, the grocery store had a duty to make sure that mat was placed and secured safely. Accordingly, a material issue existed as to whether the grocery store should have expected that its customers could be injured by the mat even though it was open and obvious.
Related Topics: Florida Personal Injury Law; Slip and Fall; Open and Obvious Doctrine; Florida Premises Liability
