K.G., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS FRANK AND CAROLYN GRAJEDA; AND FRANK AND CAROLYN GRAJEDA, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
WINTER SPRINGS COMMUNITY EVANGELICAL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, ET AL., 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 held that a tree with a surrounding brick border does not constitute a dangerous condition or concealed peril, thus imposing no duty on the property owner to warn or take precautionary measures.
A minor child, K.G., attended a church youth group and, while playing football in the dark, tripped on a rock and fell, striking his knee on bricks su…
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 Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Appellants, K.G. a minor, bringing suit by and through his parents, Frank and Carolyn Grajeda, and the Grajedas individually, appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of Winter Springs Community Evangelical Church which denies them any recovery for personal injuries suffered by the child on the church’s premises. They contend that protruding, uneven bricks placed around the base of a tree on the church property constituted a dangerous and hazardous condition, which gave rise to the church’s duty to warn about the bricks or to provide better lighting for the premises. We affirm.
The record established that the child attended a youth group at the church, which ended earlier than the usual time of 7:30 p.m. The incident occurred in November of 1981, and it was dark outside. However, there was sufficient light from flood lights on the corners of the building to permit K.G. and at least one other boy to throw and catch a football. While running, K.G. tripped on a rock in the yard, and struck his knee on one of the bricks surrounding the tree. He ultimately suffered serious damage to the cartilage in his knee, which required arthroscopic surgery.
We affirm because we do not think that a tree with a surrounding brick border constitutes a dangerous condition or concealed peril. There was therefore no duty on the part of the church to warn or take other precautionary measures, such as installing better lighting.1
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . See Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981); Meyer v. Torrey, 452 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Ferguson, 556 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…o not constitute a hidden dangerous condition. In addition to Casby and Hoag, see Schoen v. Gilbert, 436 So. 2d 75 (Fla.1983); Bowles v. Elkes Pontiac Co., 63 So. 2d 769 (Fla.1952); K.G. v. Winter Springs Community Evangelical Congregational Church, 509 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); McAllister v. Robbins, 542 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); and Prager v. Marks Brothers Co., 483 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See also, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcott…
-
Dandal Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…alt Disney World Hospitality, 920 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Landscaping features are generally found not to constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. See, e.g., K.G. v. Winter Springs Cmty. Evangelical Congregational Church, 509 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (holding tree with surrounding brick border on which child struck his knee while playing football was not a dangerous condition or concealed peril; therefore, church had no duty to warn or take other precautionary measures). More…
-
Sherwin Wolf v. Sam's E., Inc., 132 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…for walking, such as planting beds.” Id. (citing City of Melbourne v. Dunn, 841 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Taylor v. Universal City Prop. Mgmt., 779 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); K.G. v. Winter Springs Cmty. Evangelical Congregational Church, 509 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Prager v. Marks Bros. Co., 483 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)). The court concluded that “the planting bed, and the stump within the planting bed, did not constitute a dangerous condition that could give rise to liability ... due…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Cooper v. State, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Meyer v. Torrey, 452 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)