ROBERT E. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT MARKOWITZ AND BONDED RENTAL AGENCY, INC., 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.
A police officer sued property owners for negligence after stumbling over an above-ground water pipe while chasing a criminal suspect on their premises. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that as a licensee, the officer was owed only a duty to warn of non-obvious dangers, and the visible pipe created no liability.
As a licensee rather than an invitee, the officer was owed only a duty to refrain from wanton negligence and to warn of non-obvious dangers. The visible above-ground water pipe was open to ordinary observation and the defendants' maintenance of it did not constitute wanton negligence, so no negligence liability attached.
[1] A police officer entering private property in pursuit of a criminal suspect is classified as a licensee under Florida law.
[2] The duty owed by a property owner to a licensee is to refrain from wanton negligence or willful conduct and to warn of known dangerous conditions not open to ordinary obs…
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 plaintiff police officer herein [Robert E. Smith] was a licensee on the property owned by the defendant Markowitz and managed by the defendant Bonded Rental Agency, Inc. when the plaintiff entered the said property chasing a criminal suspect”
Establishes the plaintiff's status as a licensee rather than an invitee, which determines the scope of duty owed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officer Robert E. Smith entered property owned by Robert Markowitz and managed by Bonded Rental Agency, Inc. while pursuing a criminal suspect …
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 Latent Danger cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment entered below in favor of the defendant property owner [Robert Markowitz] and the defendant property manager [Bonded Rental Agency, Inc.] in this premises liability negligence action is affirmed. We reach this result based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, under Florida law, the plaintiff police officer herein [Robert E. Smith] was a licensee on the property owned by the defendant Markowitz and managed by the defendant Bonded Rental Agency, Inc. when the plaintiff entered the said property chasing a criminal suspect who had allegedly been involved in an illegal drug transaction in the area. We decline to recede from or distinguish, as urged, the cases in this area of law so as to make the said plaintiff an invitee on the subject property. See Rishel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Whitten v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority, 357 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1978); Hall v. Holton, 330 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); Romedy v. Johnston, 193 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Second, “the sole duty owed him [the plaintiff Smith as licensee] by the owner or occupant of the premises [the defendants herein] is to refrain from wanton negligence or willful conduct and to warn him of any defect or condition known to the owner or occupant [the defendants herein] to be dangerous, if such danger is not open to ordinary observation by the licensee [the plaintiff Smith].” Whitten v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority, supra, at 432.
Third, it appears without genuine material dispute that the above-ground water pipe, over which the plaintiff stumbled and fell while on the subject property, was open to ordinary observation and represented, in no sense, a latent or hidden danger. It is also plain, as a matter of law, that the maintenance of this water pipe did not amount to wanton negligence or willful conduct by the defendants. This being so, there can be no negligence liability attached to the defendants for the plaintiffs injuries in this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lane v. The Inter Vivos Est. OF Lawrence Morton, 687 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…DCA 1990) wherein we held as a matter of law that the danger of crime or criminal assaults is open and obvious, therefore, the City breached no duty to a licensee assaulted at its park when it failed to warn of the same. See also Smith v. Markowitz, 486 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA) (no duty to warn licensee of open and obvious above-ground water pipe), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986); Nolan v. Roberts, 383 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (no duty to warn child of sharp spines of a plant which is i…
-
Officer John Kilpatrick v. Sklar, 497 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…Christie v. Anchorage Yacht Haven, Inc., 287 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Furthermore, because Dr. Ferrer is not within the purview of Chapter 767, the fireman’s rule applies and precludes Kilpatrick’s action against her. See Smith v. Markowitz, 486 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Rishel v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Price v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1984); Whitten v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority, 357 So. 2d 430 (…
-
Bovino v. McDonalds Corp., 509 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. We cite, with approval, the language of Smith v. Markowitz, 486 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986), and affirm this cause upon the authority of that case. Policemen, while discharging their duties, are subject to the Firemen’s Rule. True, there are exceptions to that rule, but none of t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rishel v. E. Airlines, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Hall v. Holton, 330 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Marvel v. State, 193 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Broda v. The City OF Miami, 357 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Whitten v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth., 357 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)