MARY DAVIS, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, THELMA DAVIS, APPELLANTS,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-10-16

No. 89-2722

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.

568 So. 2d 1301 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the city did not breach its duty of care to the plaintiff, who was a licensee, because the danger of criminal assault was open and obvious.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff was assaulted in a city park after it was closed. The park was located in a high-crime area.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Licensee Status Open And Obvious Danger Premises Liability Negligence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Licensee Status cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Mary Davis, by and through her mother and guardian Thelma Davis, from an adverse final summary judgment entered in a negligence action; the subject action arose out of a criminal assault suffered by the plaintiff while walking in a park owned by the defendant City of Miami after the park was closed. We affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.

First, the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, a licensee on the defendant’s property at the time of the criminal assault, and, accordingly, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff not to willfully or wantonly injure her and to warn the latter of any dangerous conditions which were not open to ordinary observation. We reject the plaintiffs contention that a triable issue is presented on this record as to whether the plaintiff was an invitee at the time of the criminal assault sued upon. Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla.1972); Libby v. West Coast Rock Co., 308 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 325 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1975).

Second, the defendant did not, as a matter of law, breach the above-stated duty to the plaintiff by failing to warn the plaintiff about the danger of criminal assaults in the park. This is so because the danger in question was an open and obvious danger in the indisputably high-crime area in which the park was located. Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla.1950); Nolan v. Roberts, 383 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 401 So. 2d 1338 (Fla.1981); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979).

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Noraida N. Barrio v. City OF Miami Beach, 698 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)

…eas of the beach. With regards to uninvited licensees, however, we have said that the danger of crime and criminal assaults is an open and obvious danger for which there is no duty to warn. See Lane 687 So. 2d at 54; see also Davis v. City of Miami, 568 So. 2d 1301, 1302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Therefore, the City breached no duty to Ms. Barrio as a matter of law. For the reasons expressed herein, we affirm the summary judgment under review. Affirmed. . The unrefuted testimony of the Assistant City Manager was…
Lane v. The Inter Vivos Est. OF Lawrence Morton, 687 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)

…to a known “high crime” area and as such, the Estate had a general duty to warn of this fact and/or provide adequate security on its premises. This argument, we think, brings this case squarely within this court’s decision in Davis v. City of Miami, 568 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d 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. M…
Najmah Taylor v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 753 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)

…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Barrio v. City of Miami Beach, 698 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 705 So. 2d 569 (Fla.1998); Lane v. Estate of Morton, 687 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Davis v. City of Miami, 568 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…

Authorities Cited

Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973)
Hall v. Holland, 47 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1950)
Arleen S. Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
Libby v. W. Coast Rock Co., Inc., 308 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
Nat'l Pulpwood Corp. & Certified Pulpwood Dealers Ass'n Self-Insurers' Fund v. Leaks, 325 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1975)
Nolan v. Roberts, 383 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
Roberts v. Nolan, 401 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1981)
State v. Russell, 401 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1981)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw