ROBERTO VERGES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
PACHECO & SONS, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In a premises liability action, the court affirmed directed verdict for the landlord because the landlord lacked possession and control of the property at the time of plaintiff's injury, which is the basis for premises liability duty.
A landlord's duty to protect invitees from dangerous conditions on premises depends on the landlord's actual possession and control of the property, not mere legal ownership.
[1] Premises liability duty depends on actual possession and control of the property rather than legal ownership alone.
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“[T]he duty to protect others from injury resulting from a dangerous condition on a premises does not rest on legal ownership of the dangerous area but on the right to control access by third parties which right usually exists in the one in possession and control of the premises.”
Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., establishing that possession and control, not ownership, determines premises liability duty.
Roberto Verges was injured on a property owned by Pacheco & Sons, Inc., a defendant-landlord. At trial, evidence showed the defendant-landlord was not…
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 Possession And Control Of Premises cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying premises liability action, the plaintiff, Roberto Verges, appeals, and the defendant-landlord, Pacheco & Sons, Inc., cross-appeals from a final judgment. We affirm finding that the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant-landlord where the evi dence presented at trial showed that the defendant-landlord was not in possession of the property at the time of the plaintiffs injury. Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 505 So. 2d 661, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)(“[T]he duty to protect others from injury resulting from a dangerous condition on a premises does not rest on legal ownership of the dangerous area but on the right to control access by third parties which right usually exists in the one in possession and control of the premises.”); see also Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(“[I]t is not ownership of the property which determines the duty of care, but rather, ‘the failure of a person who is in actual possession and control ... to use due care to warn or to exclude, licensees and invitees from areas known to possessor to be dangerous because of operations or activities or conditions.’ ” (quoting Haynes v. Lloyd, 533 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988))).
Because this issue is dispositive, we do not address the issue raised in the cross-appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the entry of final judgment in favor of the defendant-landlord.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bechtel Corp. v. Batchelor, 250 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…other possessor with authority or control), to use due care to warn or to exclude, licensees and invitees from areas known to the possessor to be dangerous because of operations or activities or conditions. See also Verges v. Pacheco & Sons, Inc., 822 So. 2d 542, 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ). Moreover, Batchelor was not required to show that Bechtel had complete or exclusive control over the premises in order to establish Bechte…
-
Moraes v. City OF Miami, 827 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. As the evidence is clear that the appel-lees had not taken physical possession of the work site and had not begun construction on it, the summary judgment is affirmed. See Verges v. Pacheco & Sons, Inc., 822 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Cruz v. Gables Colony, Ltd., 579 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Bovis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 505 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Trevino O. Haynes v. L.F. Lloyd, 533 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Worth v. Eugene Gentile Builders, 697 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)