NU-WEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND AMTERRE DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BRIAN BERKOWITZ, AND BARNETT BERKOWITZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for parking lot owner defendants, holding that allegations of a badly designed parking lot were sufficient to survive summary judgment and potentially support a contribution claim against the driver.
A parking lot owner may be liable for injuries caused by accidents on its premises if the owner breached a duty to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition and that breach proximately caused the injury.
[1] A parking lot owner may be held liable for accidents occurring on its premises if the owner breached a duty to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition and that…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“owner of parking lot has a duty to use reasonable care to see that the premises are in reasonably safe condition for the intended use”
Court cited Jackson v. Pike to establish the legal duty owed by parking lot owners.
Berkowitz's car hit Circosta's motorcycle in a parking lot owned by Nu-West. Nu-West settled with Circosta and sought contribution from Berkowitz and …
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 Duty To Maintain Premises In Reasonably Safe Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Circosta sued defendants/appel-lees Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., Brian Berkowitz, and Barnett Berkow-itz [Berkowitz] after Berkowitz’s car hit Circosta’s motorcycle in a parking lot owned by defendants/appellants Nu-West Development Corporation and Amterre Development, Inc. [Nu-West]. Nu-West settled with Circosta and sought contribution from Berkowitz. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Berkowitz, thus denying Nu-West’s claim for contribution. We reverse upon a holding that the allegations and evidence of Nu-West’s badly designed parking lot were sufficient as a matter of law to withstand the motion for summary judgment.
Berkowitz’s reliance upon Food Fair, Inc. v. Gold, 464 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985), is misplaced. In Food Fair, we refused to hold liable the owner of a parking lot whose acts were not the proximate cause of the accident. We did not state that an owner of a parking lot is never liable for accidents which occur on its parking lot. See Jackson v. Pike, 87 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1956) (owner of parking lot has a duty to use reasonable care to see that the premises are in reasonably safe condition for the intended use). If it can be shown that Nu-West breached a legal duty which proximately caused Circosta’s injuries, then Nu-West’s settlement with Circosta will not have been a volunteer payment and Nu-West will be entitled to contribution. See 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution § 15 (1985).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Pike, 87 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1956)
- Food Fair, Inc. v. Augusta Gold, 464 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)