4D06-3432-Fieldhouse v. Tam Investment Company

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fourth District Court

Docket No: 4D06-3432

Case Date: 06/20/2007

Preview:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2007

GILLIAN FIELDHOUSE, Appellant, v. TAM INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Florida corporation d/b/a FALLS OF MARGATE, Appellee. No. 4D06-3432 [June 20, 2007] STEVENSON, C.J. Gillian Fieldhouse appeals an order entering final summary judgment in her negligence action against Tam Investment Company, the landlord and owner of the apartment complex at which Fieldhouse was a tenant. Fieldhouse contends that summary judgment was inappropriate because Tam Investment Company had a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and a jury question was presented as to whether her injuries were reasonably foreseeable. Because we find the existence of genuine issues of material fact, we reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Tam Investment Company. On March 9, 2003, Fieldhouse was walking in the common area behind her apartment to get her bicycle when she tripped on a tree root that was hidden by leaves. The complaint alleged the leaves created a dangerous concealed condition and Tam Investment Company breached its duty to Fieldhouse by failing to remove the exposed tree root or warn her of the hazardous and dangerous condition of the premises. When moving for summary judgment Tam Investment Company asserted there were no issues of material fact because the root was a natural condition, Fieldhouse knew of the root's existence before the accident occurred, the company could not have reasonably anticipated that Fieldhouse would be injured, and Fieldhouse's decision to store her bicycle near the tree created the dangerous condition. The trial court ultimately granted the company's motion. Although the order appealed does not state the court's rationale, the court

commented at the motion hearing that liability did not exist because the common area was not used for a special purpose, the root was open and obvious, and the company did not have a duty to warn Fieldhouse or clean the leaves. We first address the trial court's belief that a duty did not exist because the common area was not used for a particular purpose. In Fenster v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 785 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court set forth a landowner's duty to an invitee: It is well settled that a property owner owes two duties to an invitee, to use reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give the invitee warning of concealed perils which are or should be known to the property owner, and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered by him through the exercise of due care. Id. at 739. By statute, those duties apply to a property's common areas. See

Download 4D06-3432-Fieldhouse v. Tam Investment Company.pdf