MICHAEL JAMES WILSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANCIS WILSON ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A minor was severely burned when he ignited gasoline he obtained from a neighbor's garage. The jury found both the minor and the landlords negligent, awarding damages. The trial court directed a verdict for the landlords, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the landlords could not be held liable absent evidence they knew or should have known gasoline was stored on the premises.
The landlords cannot be held liable for negligence because the appellants failed to establish that the landlords had actual or constructive knowledge that gasoline was on the premises. Liability for negligence in maintaining premises requires proof of knowledge of the dangerous condition; absent such knowledge or foreseeability of the injury, no liability attaches.
[1] A landlord may be liable to third persons for injuries caused by defects in the leased premises if the premises contain an incipient nuisance that becomes active through…
[2] To establish landlord liability for injuries caused by a defect on leased premises, the injured party must show that the landlord left the dangerous item on the premises…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to find liability on the part of the landlord, it is necessary for the injured party to show that the can with gasoline was left in the garage by the landlord and that the landlord knew that it contained gasoline. That showing was not made in the trial court.”
Establishes the required elements for landlord liability for injuries from hazardous conditions on leased premises.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Wilson, age eight, was severely burned when he and other children ignited gasoline from a gray can found in a garage at the neighboring proper…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Landlord Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellants seek review of a directed verdict in favor of appellees entered by the trial court after the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants.
Michael Wilson, a minor, was severely burned when he and some other children ignited gasoline. Claiming that the gasoline had been obtained from a neighbor’s garage, Michael and his mother filed suit against both the owners and the occupants of the neighboring property.1 Appellants alleged that storing gasoline in an area accessible to children constituted negligence causing Michael’s injuries.
A default judgment was entered against the tenants, but the case proceeded to a jury trial on the question of the landlords’ liability and on the amount of damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants finding that the minor’s negligence contributed 75% and the landlords’ negligence contributed 25% resulting in an award to the minor of $29,000 and $4,000 to his mother. The trial court then directed a verdict against appellants. We find no error in the decision of the trial court.
Although appellants contend the jury verdict was supported by evidence, testimony discloses that the landlords had no knowledge that gasoline was stored on the premises formerly lived in by them and subsequently rented to the tenants. Although they may have left some of their possessions in the garage, nothing indicated that the landlords stored gasoline in the garage annexed to the house. Michael was eight years old at the time of the incident. He was playing with the tenants’ children at their home when someone obtained gasoline from a gray can in the garage. The gasoline was then poured into a red cup and brought outside. He did not remember who obtained the gasoline or who poured it into the cup and ignited it. He stated that the gasoline could have come from another neighbor’s home. The landlords stated they never stored any gasoline in the garage. Tenant Ed Wilson testified that he could not remember if he had ever stored gasoline in the garage. His wife indicated that there might have been some, gasoline in the garage for the lawn mower. The evidence in the record is insufficient to support a jury verdict for appellants.
A landlord may be liable to third persons for injuries caused by defects in the leased premises. If premises are leased containing an incipient nuisance which becomes active by the tenants’ ordinary use, the landlord is liable to third persons injured as a natural consequence. Bowen v. Holloway, 255 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). In order to find liability on the part of the landlord, it is necessary for the injured party to show that the can with gasoline was left in the garage by the landlord and that the landlord knew that it con tained gasoline. That showing was not made in the trial court. The record does not disclose that the landlords exercised control of the premises. The evidence was therefore insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
There is no evidence which would lead to the conclusion that the landlord should have anticipated or foreseen the accident. Schnabel v. Mormann, 324 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
In summary, appellees were not shown to have had knowledge, either actual or constructive, that the gasoline was on the premises. Under the circumstances in the record, it was not reasonable to expect appellees to foresee the injury that occurred. Liability for negligence in failing to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition must be predicated on knowledge that a dangerous condition exists, so that in the exercise of ordinary care, action should be taken to remedy the situation. No liability can attach if it is not shown that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. This is especially true where the dangerous condition is traceable to acts of other persons. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Petterson, 291 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
. By coincidence, the parties are all surnamed Wilson: appellants, Michael James Wilson and Mary Wilson, his mother; appellees-landlords, Francis Wilson and Fannie Wilson; and the defendants-tenants, Ed Wilson and Trudy Wilson, who are not parties to this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fitzgerald v. Cestari, 553 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…is not liable for injuries sustained by a child on the landlord’s leased premises in the absence of a showing that the landlord had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition existing on the premises. See Wilson v. Wilson, 382 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Although Fitzgerald cites to Florida cases which he claims stand for the proposition that cases involving sliding glass doors normally present factual questions for the jury, our reading of those cases leaves us with the impress…
-
Frazier v. Pozzi, 833 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wilson v. Wilson, 382 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sadowsky v. Levine, 135 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).…
Authorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Petterson, 291 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Bowen v. Holloway, 255 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Bailey v. State, 324 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Schnabel v. Mormann, 324 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)