MICHAEL ODICE, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD PEARSON AND BERNICE PEARSON D/B/A PEARSONS BARBEQUE RESTAURANT, 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 customer stabbed by an unknown third party in a restaurant parking lot sued for negligent security and lighting. The trial court excluded evidence of prior crimes in the surrounding area when determining foreseeability, and the appellate court reversed, holding that context about the neighborhood's crime character is relevant and necessary for a jury to assess whether the property owner's security measures were reasonable.
The trial court committed reversible error by limiting foreseeability evidence to crimes occurring only on the property and adjacent sidewalk. Evidence of prior crimes in the broader neighborhood is relevant and admissible to establish foreseeability on a case-by-case basis, and property lines cannot be an absolute limitation on foreseeability, particularly for businesses in densely populated areas.
[1] A property owner's duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal activity may extend beyond the boundaries of the owner's property.
[2] The foreseeability of criminal activity on or about a property owner's premises is a question for the jury.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We reverse. The trial court committed reversible error by limiting the issue of foreseeability to crimes occurring on appellees' property and the adjacent sidewalk.”
States the core holding and identifies the trial court's error in restricting evidence of surrounding neighborhood crimes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Michael Odice purchased food at appellees' restaurant in Fort Lauderdale and was subsequently stabbed by an unknown third party in the resta…
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 Negligent Security cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant appeals the final judgment entered on appellees’ motion for directed verdict.
After purchasing food at appellees’ restaurant, appellant was stabbed by an unknown third party. The attack took place in appellees’ parking lot. Suit was brought alleging negligent lighting and security.
At trial, the judge excluded any reference to police reports concerning prior crimes committed off appellees’ property. Appellant proffered that the reports showed many crimes had occurred in the general vicinity known to the police as a “high crime area.”
We reverse. The trial court committed reversible error by limiting the issue of foreseeability to crimes occurring on appel-lees’ property and the adjacent sidewalk. Such ruling directly affected appellant’s ability to establish appellees’ failure to foresee criminal activity and take the necessary reasonable precautions to guard against crime on or about the restaurant premises.
Whether evidence of prior crimes should be admitted to establish foreseeability of criminal activity is a question of relevancy to be determined on a case by case basis. Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1986); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Green Companies v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). While property lines might be a reasonable limitation of foreseeability for the owner of an Ocala ranch, the same limitation cannot reasonably apply to the owner of a building in a densely populated city like Fort Lauderdale.
.Foreseeability is a jury question. In order for a jury to determine if a property owner took reasonable precautions to protect persons on or about the premises from foreseeable criminal activity, a plaintiff must be given the opportunity to establish the type of neighborhood where the incident took place. Isolating a particular property from its surrounding area forces a jury to decide the question of foreseeability in a vacuum, like telling the jurors a mugging took place outside a church named St. Patrick’s and neglecting to say it’s located in the midtown section of New York City.
Evidence as to the nature and likelihood of any crime occurring has a direct bearing on whether the preventive measures taken by the property owner were reasonable in light of all the other relevant facts and circumstances in the case.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Polly Suzanne Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- The Green Cos. v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Lauri Sue Lomillo and Santiago Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)