DELORES BLANKENSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
DALE DEAN ROTHS AND JOHN DEAN, 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.
Landlords have a duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition, and whether they breached that duty by failing to address an oily parking lot presents a jury question that cannot be resolved on summary judgment, though they had no duty to warn of dangers equally known to the tenant.
Landlords have a duty to use ordinary care in keeping premises reasonably safe, and whether they breached this duty regarding an oily parking lot is a question of fact for the jury, not subject to summary judgment.
[1] A landlord's duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition is a question of fact for the jury when the condition at issue, such as an oily parking lot following…
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“Landlords have a duty to use ordinary care in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition.”
Establishing the general duty owed by landlords to tenants regarding premises safety.
Delores Blankenship, a tenant, slipped and fell in an oily parking lot the afternoon after a rainy morning. The landlords, Dale Dean Roths and John De…
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
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, Delores Blankenship, appeals a summary judgment entered against her personal injury claim for damages in a slip-and-fall ease. Although we affirm the trial court’s holding that the evidence conclusively demonstrates that appellees, Dale Dean Roths and John Dean, Blankenship’s landlords, had no duty to warn Blankenship of the dangers of the oily parking lot, because their knowledge of this condition was not superior to hers, see Emmons v. Baptist Hosp., 478 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986), we reverse the trial court’s holding that there is no evidence raising an inference that the landlords breached any other duty to Blankenship.
Landlords have a duty to use ordinary care in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Lynch v. Brown, 489 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Whether appellees should have anticipated an oily, wet parking lot the afternoon after a rainy morning and whether this condition presented an unreasonable risk to their tenant, or whether monthly inspections and sanding oily spots upon actual notice of them constituted reasonable care are all questions of fact for the jury. Blankenship’s knowledge of the danger goes to the issue of comparative negligence. Taylor v. Tolbert Enters., Inc., 439 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Lynch 489 So. 2d at 67; Northwest Fla. Crippled Children’s Ass’n v. Harigel, 479 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fenster v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 785 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…es Court concluded that under the facts of the case, there was a jury question raised as to whether Publix was negligent in its use of the wooden pallet. Thus, the trial court erred in granting Publix summary judgment. See also Blankenship v. Roths, 634 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Abes presented a comparative negligence situation where the appellant was aware of the carton in the aisle. Like Abes, in this case, even though appellant was aware that the float existed, and that the pallet was moved so that…
-
Paul v. SEA Watch OF Panama City Beach, Inc., 643 So. 2d 663-665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…1) to warn the invitee of concealed dangers which are or should be known to the owner but which the invitee cannot discover through the exercise of due care, and (2) to keep its property in reasonably safe condition. See, e.g., Blankenship v. Roths, 634 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Skipper v. Barnes Supermarket, 573 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Miller v. Wallace, 591 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So. 2d 941 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). Initially, we agree with Sea Watch that it had…
Authorities Cited
- Emmons v. Baptist Hosp. & Servicemaster Indus., Inc., 478 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Lynch v. Brown, 489 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Taylor v. Tolbert Enters., Inc., 439 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Nw. Fla. Crippled Child's. Ass'n v. Harigel, 479 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)