ADMIRAL'S PORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., AND LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDNA FELDMAN AND HAROLD FELDMAN, 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.
Admiral's Port Condominium Association appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for breach of duty to protect unit owners from criminal assault. The court reversed, holding that absent evidence of foreseeability of crime on the premises, no duty of care arose to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts.
The court held that a landowner's duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of third persons depends upon foreseeability of such criminal activity. The appellees failed to establish that the Association should have been on notice to guard against crimes on its parking lots, nor did they prove the Association breached any security duty it owed. Therefore, the Association is not liable.
[1] A landowner's duty to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties hinges on the foreseeability of such criminal activity.
[2] Evidence of violent crimes occurring off the premises and against individuals other than the landowner's invitees is not probative of foreseeability.
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 of care owed by a landowner to an invitee with respect to protection from criminal acts of a third person is dependent upon the foreseeability of that third party's activity.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for landowner liability in criminal assault cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdna and Harold Feldman were unit owners at Admiral's Port Condominium. Mrs. Feldman was mugged in the northeast parking lot and sustained injuries. T…
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.
JORGENSON, Judge.
Admiral’s Port Condominium Association appeals from a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding the Association liable for the breach of a duty to protect Edna Feldman and her husband, Harold, from criminal acts of third persons. We conclude that upon this record no breach was demonstrated and accordingly reverse the judgment and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of the Association.
The essential facts are not in dispute. Mr. and Mrs. Feldman are unit owners in the Admiral’s Port Condominium complex. The Association had established security procedures involving ingress and egress to the buildings occupied by the unit owners. Mrs. Feldman was mugged in the northeast parking lot of the complex and sustained certain physical injuries. Prior to the time of the foregoing event no crimes against persons had been reported on Admiral’s Port property.
The duty of care owed by a landowner to an invitee with respect to protection from criminal acts of a third person is dependent upon the foreseeability of that third party’s activity. Medina v. 187th Street Apartments, Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The trial court admitted over the defendant’s objection evidence of violent crime which had occurred substantial distances away from the premises in the case sub judice. Evidence of similar crimes committed off the premises and against persons other than the landowner’s invitees is not probative of foreseeability. Highlands Insurance Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981).
The appellees here failed to establish any evidence that the Association should reasonably have been on notice to take reasonable steps to guard against crimes against persons on its parking lots, nor have the appellees demonstrated through competent evidence that the Association breached any duty owed the appellees with respect to the security measures that it did employ. See Ten Associates v. McCutchen, 398 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981).
For the foregoing reasons we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the defendant association.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Polly Suzanne Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…his premises from criminal attack by a person over whom the landowner has no control unless the criminal attack is reasonably foreseeable. E.g., Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Admiral’s Port Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Highlands Insurance Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It has also been said that, to impose such a duty upon the landowner, the invitee must allege and prove that the landowner had actual or constructive knowledg…
-
Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ign immunity. Ameijeiras filed an appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. Admiral’s Port Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), appeal after remand, 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 198…
-
Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. DOE, 454 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…i-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The evidence concerning prior crimes which occurred in the shopping center was properly admitted. See Green Companies v. Divicenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Admiral’s Port Condominium v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.3d DCA), review denied mem., 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions to enter a final judgment finding Equity 100% negligent. Affi…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Virgilio Medina and Digna Medina v. 187TH St. Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- TEN Assocs. v. McCUTCHEN, 398 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)