GERALDO AMEIJEIRAS AND ENEYDA AMEIJEIRAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEE
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.
Geraldo Ameijeiras was shot and paralyzed during an attempted robbery while jogging on a nature trail in a Dade County park. He sued the county for failing to maintain the park and provide adequate protection, but the court affirmed summary judgment for the county, finding the attack was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law because no violent crimes had been reported in the park during the prior two years.
A landowner owes a duty to protect an invitee from a reasonably foreseeable criminal attack only when the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts. Since no violent crimes were reported in the park during the two years before the attack, the attack was not foreseeable as a matter of law, and the county could not be held liable.
[1] A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable.
[2] A landowner's duty to protect an invitee from criminal attack arises only when the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on th…
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“A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable.”
Establishes the general legal duty owed by landowners to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmeijeiras was shot during an attempted robbery while jogging on the nature trail at Bird Drive Park. He alleged that the county permitted the trail t…
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 Sovereign Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Geraldo Ameijeiras was shot during an attempted robbery and rendered a paraplegic. The crime occurred while he was jogging on the nature trail at Bird Drive Park. Ameijeiras sued Metropolitan Dade County [Dade County] for damages, alleging that, by permitting the nature trail to become overgrown, Dade County had facilitated the attack. He asserted that homosexual activity, illicit drug dealing and arson attempts had occurred in the park and that Dade County knew of these activities, but failed to provide adequate protection. Pointing to the fact that no violent crimes had been reported in Bird Drive Park during the two years preceding the attack on Ameijeiras, Dade County sought a summary judgment on the ground that the attack on Ameijeiras was not foreseeable, and thus, Dade County had no legal duty to warn or protect Ameijeiras.
The trial court granted Dade County’s motion and entered final summary judgment. The court found that Dade County did not have sufficient knowledge of similar acts to cause the attack to be foreseeable as a matter of law, and further, that Dade County was entitled to sovereign immunity. Ameijeiras filed an appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. Admiral’s Port Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), appeal after remand, 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
The landowner’s duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises. Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1986), and 484 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1986); School Bd. of Palm Beach County v. Anderson, 411 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Medina; Relyea. In the case before us, the record discloses that no violent crimes were reported to Dade County in the two years prior to the attack on Ameijeiras; Ameijeiras introduced no evidence that Dade County knew of the existence of violent criminal activity in Bird Drive Park. In the absence of proof that it had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity in Bird Drive Park, Dade County may not be held liable for the attack on Ameijeiras because, as a matter of law, the attack was not foreseeable.1
Our disposition of this point renders it unnecessary for us to address the other points raised on appeal.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.
. Unlike the author of the concurring opinion, we see the issue in terms of foreseeability. Even though Dade County might have the “same common law duty as a private person to properly maintain and operate the property,” Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912, 921 (Fla.1985), the lack of foreseeability of the attack precludes liability on its part even before sovereign immunity considerations are reached.
JORGENSON, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the court. I would not reach the foreseeability question. Rather, I would affirm on the basis of sovereign immunity. Protection of the public against third party criminal attacks on public parkland is an inherently governmental function for which there has never been a common law duty of care. Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985). Applying the controlling principles of Trianon to this record, Metropolitan Dade County is immune from tort liability. See also Delgado v. City of Miami Beach, 518 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Zieja v. Metropolitan Dade County, 508 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (en banc) (Schwartz, C.J.; Baskin, Jorgenson, JJ., specially concurring).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…imiting admissibility to those reports containing only similar criminal activity would be irreconcilable with the supreme court’s holdings in Stevens, Allen, and Hall. The present case is distinguishable from Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989). In that case, the only reported criminal incidents were homosexual activity, illicit drug dealing and arson attempts. No violent crimes had been reported in the two years preceding the att…
-
Noraida N. Barrio v. City OF Miami Beach, 698 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ity of North Miami Beach, 613 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (reversing summary judgment in favor of City and against victim who was an invitee on the City’s premises at the time of the criminal attack); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (finding landowner has duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989). As an uninvited licensee of the beach, the City owed the fo…
-
Hill v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 613 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…tee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable .... The landowner’s duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises.” Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (emphasis in original), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989). Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has said that “[fjoreseeability may be established by proving that a proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985)
- Polly Suzanne Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Virgilio Medina and Digna Medina v. 187TH St. Apts., Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Admiral's Port Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Zieja v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 508 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Delgado v. City OF Miami Beach, 518 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. Anderson, 411 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)