ANTHONY PALUMBO, APPELLANT,
v.
LIL GENERAL STORES CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, JULIUS FINKELSTEIN, DAVID ALPER AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreseeability Of Intervening Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The appellant was beaten in the parking lot of a convenience store. He filed suit claiming that the store owed him the duty to keep the parking lot safe because prior criminal activity had occurred there.
The convenience store argued there had been no prior beatings and that this partic ular attack was not foreseeable. The trial judge agreed and granted summary judgment. We reverse.
There had previously occurred both disorderly conduct and an aggravated assault on the premises. Upon the authority of Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla.1983), we believe the trial judge must be reversed. As Babrab noted, “Foreseeability of an intervening cause is a question for the trier of fact.” Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment in favor of the convenience store must be reversed.
Without further comment we do, however, affirm the summary judgment in favor of the convenience store’s landlord.
AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
concurring specially.
While Babrab constitutes more welcome fruit trees for the lawyers’ gardens, one wonders about its far reaching consequences. There cannot be many parking lots in South Florida which have not seen criminal violence. This being so, it would appear the current state of the law requires merchants to assume the burden of regular law enforcement — and be unfailingly successful — otherwise a cause of action can be stated against them. One can also contemplate a homeowner’s liability to his guests upon the occasion of a second armed robbery at a dinner party.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salerno v. Hart Fin. Corp., 521 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…Nonetheless, foreseeability and causation are classically jury questions. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Palumbo v. Lil General Stores Corp., 453 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We recognize that the physical layout of this particular mobile home park presents a more difficult security situation than a motel, hotel, or tightly s…
-
Newell v. Best Sec. Sys., Inc., 560 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…onetheless, foreseeability and causation are classically jury questions. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Palumbo v. Lil General Stores, Cory., 453 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Johstoneaux, 395 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Id. at 235. Thus, the evidence of the prior criminal activity including residential burglaries in the surrounding area was relevant and admissible on th…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983)