Garcia v. Collazo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 12, 2000

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2000-04-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 2012

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, simply because a hazardous condition is open and obvious does not necessarily mean that the owners' duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition is discharged.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 908 So. 2d 574 - Aaron v. Palatka Mall, LLC

Relies on Lotto v. Point East Two Condominium Corp. · 711 So. 2d 234 - Kersul v. BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSP. INC. · 758 So. 2d 696 - Jauma v. City of Hialeah

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We reverse the order granting the defendant landlord final summary judgment. “The open and obvious nature of the hazard does not provide an avenue of relief. ...” Jauma v. City of Hialeah, 758 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “[Although the open and obvious nature of a hazard may discharge a landowner’s duty to warn, it does not discharge the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.” Kersul v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 711 So.2d 234, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see Lotto v. Point East Two Condominium Corp., 702 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

¶2Reversed and remanded.