CLINTON E. MORRIS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORENTES, INC., 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.
Clinton Morris sued Florentes, Inc. for injuries sustained when his dirt bike hit a ditch on Florentes' property. The court affirmed dismissal of his complaint, holding that as an uninvited licensee or trespasser, Morris could not establish a cause of action because the ditch was open to ordinary observation in broad daylight.
Morris failed to state a cause of action because the ditch was open to ordinary observation in broad daylight, and a landowner's duty to an uninvited licensee or discovered trespasser is limited to avoiding willful and wanton harm and warning of non-obvious dangerous conditions. The duty to warn applies only to dangerous conditions known to the landowner that are not open to ordinary observation.
[1] A landowner's duty of care to a visitor is determined by the visitor's legal status on the property.
[2] The duty owed by a landowner to an uninvited licensee or a discovered trespasser is to avoid willful and wanton harm and to warn of known, non-obvious dangerous condition…
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 duty owed by a landowner to an uninvited licensee or a discovered trespasser is essentially the same; to avoid willful and wanton harm to him, and to warn him of a defect or condition known by the landowner to be dangerous when such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee or trespasser.”
Establishes the applicable standard of care owed to uninvited licensees and trespassers under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris was riding a dirt bike on property owned by Florentes, Inc. when his bike hit the bank of a ditch crossing the trail, injuring him. Florentes' …
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 Landowner Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
Clinton Morris, Jr. appeals from an order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action.
Morris was riding a motorcycle known as a “dirt bike” on property owned by Flo-rentes, Inc. and was injured when his bike hit the bank of a ditch which cut across the trail. Morris filed suit against Florentes alleging that Florentes knew or should have known that its property was commonly used in the recreational operation of dirt bikes, that such use had not been restricted or prohibited by Florentes, that Morris was a foreseeable but uninvited user of an existing bike trail on the property, that the ditch presented an extreme danger to those unfamiliar with the bike trail, that Florentes had a duty to warn of this condition, and that as a result of Florentes’ negligence, Morris sustained serious injuries.
We agree that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action. The appropriate duty of care owed a visitor by the owner or occupier is determined by the status of the visitor. Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972). Here, Morris was, at best, an uninvited licensee;1 at worst, a trespasser. This court has recently noted that the distinction between the duty owed by a landowner to these two classes is hazy (if a distinction exists), but that the labels have been preserved. Dougherty v. Hernando County, 419 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) [1982 F.L.W.1815]. The duty owed by a landowner to an uninvited licensee or a discovered trespasser is essentially the same; to avoid willful and wanton harm to him, and to warn him of a defect or condition known by the landowner to be dangerous when such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee or trespasser. Post v. Lunney.
When the factual allegations of Morris’ second amended complaint (as distinguished from its conclusions), are measured against Florentes’ obligations to him, it becomes clear that a cause of action was not stated. There is no allegation that Flo-rentes acted in a willful and wanton manner. Florentes’ duty to warn related only to those dangerous conditions known to it which were not open to ordinary observation by the licensee. Even assuming that the ditch was a dangerous condition, it was nevertheless, open to ordinary observation. It cannot be said that the property owner should have reasonably contemplated that a ditch could not be readily seen in broad daylight.2 Our holding is consistent with section 342 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) which states:
Dangerous Conditions Known to Possessor
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, but only if,
(a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees, and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, and (b) he fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved, and (c) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved, (emphasis added)
AFFIRMED.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . See Savignac v. Department of Transportation, 406 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Libby v. West Coast Rock Co., Inc., 308 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
. We suspect that dirt bikers specifically seek rough terrain because that is where their vehicles are designed to be used and their skills best demonstrated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 505 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…enience without invitation either expressed or reasonably implied under the circumstances.” Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1973). The distinction between the duty owed an uninvited licensee and a trespasser is hazy. See Morris v. Florentes, Inc., 421 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). . An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor. A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. A busi…
-
Noraida N. Barrio v. City OF Miami Beach, 698 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…uriosity.” Id. (quoting Post, 261 So. 2d at 147). The classification of the entrant is significant because the duty of care owed by the landowner varies according to the visitor’s status. See Lukancich, 583 So. 2d at 1072; Morris v. Florentes, Inc., 421 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Zipkin, 418 So. 2d at 1042. Based upon the undisputed record evidence, we reject Ms. Barrio’s contention that she was an invitee on the beach at the time of her attack. We think that her argument in this regard is clearly…
-
Kapetanopoulos v. Herbert, 449 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…and affidavit which set out ultimate facts to show the existence of a meritorious defense. We cannot say that appellants have not asserted meritorious defenses. See, e.g., Simms v. Kennedy, 74 Fla. 411, 76 So. 739 (1918); Morris v. Florentes, Inc., 421 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); McDonald v. Wingard, 309 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Pinson v. Barlow, 209 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), overruled on other grounds, Hix v. Billen, 284 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1973). Appellants also, in our view, established their…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)
- Savignac v. Dep't OF Transp., 406 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Libby v. W. Coast Rock Co., Inc., 308 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Dougherty v. Hernando Cnty., 419 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)