METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA Y. YELVINGTON AND JAMES O. YELVINGTON, HER HUSBAND, 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.
Mrs. Yelvington slipped on an algae-coated boat launching ramp at a county recreational facility and sued for damages. The jury found her 60% negligent but awarded damages under Florida's comparative negligence doctrine. The court affirmed, rejecting the county's arguments that it had no duty of care and that the obvious hazard barred recovery.
The county had a duty of care to persons using its facilities, and an open and obvious hazard is not a complete bar to recovery. Under Florida's comparative negligence doctrine, a plaintiff's negligence in failing to perceive an obvious danger does not preclude recovery but rather reduces damages proportionally.
[1] A statute relieving a governmental entity of a duty of care toward persons using its recreational facilities does not apply to a county.
[2] The open and obvious nature of a hazard on land does not, as a matter of law, completely relieve the possessor of liability if the possessor should anticipate the harm.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The slippery algae condition on the boat launching ramp was not, as a matter of law, so open and obvious as to completely relieve the defendant of liability.”
Establishes that obviousness of a hazard does not bar liability as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Yelvington slipped on algae that had accumulated for two to three months on a boat launching ramp at Pelican Harbor, a recreational facility oper…
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 Statutory Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Mrs. Yelvington slipped on an algae-coated boat launching ramp at Pelican Harbor, a recreational facility operated and maintained by Metropolitan Dade County.1 She and her husband sued the County for damages arising from her injuries. A jury returned a verdict in favor of these plaintiffs and specially found that Mrs. Yelvington was sixty per cent negligent. From the trial court’s judgment thereon both sides have appealed, and we affirm.
The County asserts first, that Section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), relieves it of any duty of care toward any person who goes onto Pelican Harbor or any park area which it provides. This contention was rejected in McPhee v. Dade County, 362 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and is rejected here.2
The County’s second argument is that Mrs. Yelvington’s negligence in failing to look out for her own safety in the face of the open and obvious algae condition precludes the plaintiffs from recovering any damages. This argument is similarly rejected. The slippery algae condition on the boat launching ramp was not, as a matter of law, so open and obvious as to completely relieve the defendant of liability. See, e. g., Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979).
Nor can it be said that, as a matter of law, the defendant was not chargeable with any knowledge of the danger. See, e. g., Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
To the extent that Mrs. Yelv-ington was negligent in not perceiving the danger created by the County, her negligence was not a bar to recovery, but rather was reflected in the jury’s special verdict on comparative negligence. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973); Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1977); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Cf. Auburn Machine Works Co., Inc. v. Jones, 366 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1979) (holding that in a products liability action the “patent danger” or “open and obvious hazard” doctrine is not a bar to recovery, but a defense to which the principles of comparative negligence apply).
Where a possessor of land should anticipate the harm which may be caused by a condition on the land, he may be liable despite the obviousness of the hazard. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A. On their cross-appeal, the Yelving-tons contend that there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding that Mrs. Yel-vington was negligent to any degree.
We hold that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s special verdict that Mrs. Yelvington was sixty per cent negligent.
Affirmed.
. While there was evidence that the ramp also contained recently washed-up seaweed about which the County may not have had notice, there was sufficient evidence presented upon which the jury could have concluded that Mrs. Yelvington slipped on a two or three-month buildup of algae.
. The holding in McPhee was that the County, as a political subdivision of the sovereign, is immune from liability. Thus, the statement in McPhee that Section 375.251 does not apply to a county could be considered dictum. We now hold that Section 375.251 does not apply to a county.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Orla Ralph v. City OF Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)…ion is narrow. We do not resolve the issue of whether the city, in fact, breached a duty to warn. Resolution of that issue concerns the “readily apparent” nature of the danger in this particular instance, (see Metropolitan Dade County v. Yelvington, 392 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition denied, 389 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980); Pittman v. Volusia County, 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)), the relative rights of sunbathers and motorists on beaches, (see White v. Hughes, 139 Fla. 54, 190 So. 446 (1939); Town of A…
-
Chapman v. Pinellas Cnty., 423 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…for recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that park area safe for use by others. The county moved for summary judgment on basis of the statute. The trial court recognized that our sister court in Metropolitan Dade County v. Yelvington, 392 So. 2d 911 (Fla.3d DCA), petition for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980), held that section 375.251 does not apply to a county. The court, however, rejected this precedent and held that the better rationale was that the statute did apply and its effect…
-
Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…Dolphins Ltd., 469 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA) (Hendry, J., dissenting) (summary judgment for lessee-football team improper where duty to warn question unanswered), rev. dismissed, 475 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1985); Metropolitan Dade County v. Yelvington, 392 So. 2d 911 (Fla.3d DCA) (slippery algae condition on boat launching ramp not so open and obvious as to relieve defendant of liability), rev. denied, 389 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980). But cf. Prager v. Marks Bros. Co., 483 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (unfinished fl…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977)
- Pittman v. Volusia Cnty., 380 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Auburn Mach. Works Co., Inc. v. Jones, 366 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1979)
- Arleen S. Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Conway, 358 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- McPHEE v. Dade Cnty., 362 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)