EDUARDO PRIETO, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-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.
The court held that Miami-Dade County cannot be held liable for the assault because the attack was not foreseeable, as there was no record evidence of prior similar incidents at the station.
Plaintiff sued Miami-Dade County for negligence after being assaulted at a Metrorail station. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County,…
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 Actual Or Constructive Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Eduardo Prieto, the plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of defendant Miami Dade County. We affirm.
Prieto sued defendants Miami-Dade County, Alanis Security, and The Wacken-hut Corporation for negligence; his claim arose from an assault he suffered at a Metrorail station. There is no evidence in the record of prior similar incidents at that station.1
The trial court properly entered final summary judgment for defendant Miami-Dade County on the grounds that the attack was not foreseeable.2 In the absence of any record evidence that the County had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity at that station, the County cannot be held liable as a matter of law for the incident. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
We do not reach the issue of sovereign immunity, as the issue of duty is disposi-tive. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Dubon, 780 So. 2d 328, 330 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
AFFIRMED.
. Prieto knew his assailants, as they had attacked him before at different locations. Prieto had not reported the attacks.
. The claims against the other defendants remain pending.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. Lago Grande Homeowners Ass'n & Centurion Protective Servs., Inc., 900 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ctivity arises only as an aspect of the common law duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe, prior offenses, giving rise to the forseeability of future ones, may be deemed indispensable to recovery. See Prieto v. Miami-Dade County, 803 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002); Metropolitan Dade Co. v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade Co., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), revi…
-
Zapata v. City OF Homestead, 867 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Prieto v. Miami-Dade County, 803 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002); Metropolitan Dade County v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…
-
Macario Velasquez Perez v. Anayat Hussaini (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…ect others from injury resulting from a dangerous condition on a premises rests on the party who has the right to control access by third parties to the premises, be it the owner, an agent, or a lessee of the property.”); Prieto v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 803 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“In the absence of any record evidence that the [defendant] had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity at that station, the [defendant] cannot be held liable as a matter of law for the incident.”); Crawfo…
Authorities Cited
- Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Krassimir Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Freddy Dubon, 780 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)