BARBARA G. SANTIAGO, ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD ALLEN AND DOROTHY ALLEN, 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for property owners in a wrongful death claim arising from an altercation at a lounge on their leased premises. The owners, who had no control over the lounge's operations and were not the liquor licensees, had no legal duty to ensure patron safety.
Property owners and lessors of premises housing a liquor lounge have no legal duty to insure patron safety where they exercise no control over business operations and are not the liquor licensees. Because beverage statutes apply only to licensees, non-licensee property owners cannot be charged with failure to comply with those statutes or ensure premises safety.
[1] A property owner who merely leases the property to a business has no legal duty to insure the safety of patrons of that business when the owner has no control over the bu…
[2] A lessor is not liable for injuries to a lessee's patrons when the lessor lacks the authority or duty to control the leased premises.
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“defendants, as mere owners and lessors of the property, had no legal duty to insure the safety of patrons of a lounge located on that property”
States the central holding that property owners leasing premises are not liable for patron safety absent control over operations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff was injured during an altercation at the Foxxy Lady Lounge located on property owned by defendants. The defendants owned the building and la…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the summary final judgment entered in favor of defendants, the Allens, on plaintiff’s wrongful death claim because defendants, as mere owners and lessors of the property, had no legal duty to insure the safety of patrons of a lounge located on that property. The plaintiff was injured during an altercatión on the premises of the Foxxy Laidy Lounge. The building housing the lounge and the land it was on were owned by the defendants herein. The lounge was owned and operated by Astral Liquors, Inc., on the property held under a lease from the defendants. The defendants had no control over, nor any right to control, the business operations of the lounge. Further, they had no financial interest in the lounge other than their right to rent monies as the owners-lessors of the building and land where the lounge was located. Under the terms of the lease, the liquor license was to be held and renewed in the name of the lessee, the “licensee.” Upon expiration of the lease, the license was to revert back to the defendants. Such arrangements have been recognized by the courts and are not contrary to public policy. See Wright v. Cade, 349 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1978); Concannon v. St. John, 384 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Coney v.
First State Bank of Miami, 405 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Although the' defendants are the “owners” of a reversionary interest in the liquor license, Gene Willner, sole stockholder and officer of Astral Liquors, Inc., was the “licensee” pursuant to statutory transfers of the license under section 561.32, Florida Statutes (1981). See Wright (purpose of section 561.32 is to apprise Beverage Department of the ownership and management of the business so it can be regulated). Since the beverage statutes are only applicable to licensees, the defendants were incapable of complying with or violating the statutes.
Therefore, since the defendants were merely the owners-lessors of the property, were not the licensees and had no authority or duty to control the premises, they cannot be charged with any failure to insure the safety of the lounge’s patrons. See Robinson v. Walker, 63 Ill.App.2d 204, 211 N.E. 2d 488 (1st Dist.1965). Cf. Barton v. Lund, 563 P. 2d 875 (Alaska 1977), overruled in Alesna v. LeGrue, 614 P. 2d 1387 (Alaska 1980) (Barton held that liquor licensees cannot be civilly liable if they do not exercise, and have no power to control the business. Alesna held that a licensee may be civilly liable for business violation of state liquor laws, thus, overruling Barton on that point.).
The summary judgment in favor of the defendants is accordingly affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montez Howard v. Metcalf, 487 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…1980); Wright v. Cade, 349 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Such transfer serves only to maintain record continuity in the ownership and management of a liquor business in order that it may be regulated pursuant to Chapter 561. See Santiago v. Allen, 449 So. 2d 388 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). The trial court properly refused to grant Howard equitable relief by compelling the Metcalfs to convey the license to her. Kinard, in her appeal, urges us to accept the notion that the performance of her contract with Howard was…
-
Gadis Jones v. Bramalea Ctrs., Inc., 559 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…uld also note that appellants’ strict liability count was asserted only against the Naghtins as “possessor and/or owner of a wild animal.” No such theory was asserted against Bramalea. The appealed order also relied in- part upon Santiago v. Allen, 449 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). Such reliance is misplaced. There, the Third District affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on plaintiff’s wrongful death action because the “defendants, as mere owners and lessors of the property, had no legal…
-
Wilkinson v. Food Serv. Mgmt. Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 639 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…lcohol because, on the day of the attack, Keys Productions was solely the owner and lessor of the property on which the bar stood. Keys Productions did not hold the liquor license or control the business operations of the bar. See Santiago v. Allen, 449 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Since the evidence reveals there is no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Keys Productions. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co.,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wright v. Cade, 349 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Coney v. First State Bank OF Miami, 405 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Concannon v. ST. John, 384 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)