HEATHER LEITCH, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, 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.
Heather Leitch was injured by a stray bullet at a city-organized New Year's Eve event in Delray Beach and sued the city for negligence in failing to warn her of this danger. The trial court granted the city's motion for directed verdict on the duty element, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that stray bullets at the event were not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law.
The city did not owe a duty to warn Leitch because, as a matter of law, a stray bullet at First Night Delray Beach 2006 was not reasonably foreseeable. The prior stray shootings in 1998 and 2003 were too remote in time and too infrequent to establish reasonable foreseeability.
[1] The existence of a duty is a question of law.
[2] A defendant's conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk when it poses a general threat of harm to others.
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“The duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant's conduct foreseeably created a broader 'zone of risk' that poses a general threat of harm to others.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a duty of care exists
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn New Year's Eve 2006, Heather Leitch was struck by a stray bullet while having champagne in the outdoor section of a restaurant at 'First Night Delr…
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 Governmental Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Heather Leitch was hit by a stray bullet at midnight on New Year’s Eve in downtown Delray Beach. At the time she was hit by the bullet, Leitch was having a glass of champagne in the outdoor section of a restaurant during “First Night Delray Beach 2006,” a family-friendly event organized and run by the city. The bullet was most likely fired into the air by a reveler from outside of the event. Leitch sued Delray Beach for its negligence in failing to warn her about stray bullets. The jury returned a verdict favorable to Leitch, but the trial court granted Delray Beach’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of duty. Leitch appealed. Because we conclude that, regardless of sovereign immunity,1 the evidence failed as a matter of law *412to establish that a stray bullet at First Night Delray Beach 2006 was reasonably foreseeable, the trial court did not err in finding that Delray Beach did not owe a duty to warn Leitch of this possibility. Thus, we affirm.
The existence of a duty is a question of law. McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla.1992). “The duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others.” Id. Since the possessor of property is not an insurer of a visitor’s safety, the possessor is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care to warn or guard against the harmful acts of a third party unless that third party’s harmful behavior is reasonably foreseeable. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 cmt. f. Although there was testimony at trial that, in 1998 and 2003, stray bullets had struck individuals in downtown Delray Beach on New Year’s Eve, we hold that these prior accidental shootings were too remote in time and too infrequent to render the instant event reasonably foreseeable. See, e.g., Graham v. Langley, 683 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that car crashing through restaurant window and injuring patron was not foreseeable, explaining that something is foreseeable when “a specific incident occurs with such frequency that it may be expected to happen again”); Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade County, 534 So.2d 812, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that attack in a county-owned park was unforeseeable because no similar violent crimes were reported to have occurred there in the preceding two years).
Because we affirm the directed verdict, we do not reach appellant’s arguments regarding insufficient damages for pain and suffering.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The LAS Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 228 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…is Court stated that á property owner “is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care to warn or guard against the harmful acts of a third party unless that third party’s harmful behavior is reasonably foreseeable.” Leitch v. City of Delray Beach, 41 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). The standard jury instructions for premises liability, which were given in this case, frame the issue as follows: [Wjhether (defendant) negligently failed to "maintain [its] premises in a reasonably safe condition, or neg…
-
Olson v. Crowell Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…Edwards, 336 So. 2d 545 (Fla.1976) (holding trial court properly dismissed complaint for illness due to the consumption of Cuban food and drink, necessitated by airplane hijacking that airline should have prevented); Leitch v. City of Delray Beach, 41 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming directed verdict that city was under no duty to warn against the possibility of a stray bullet fired during New Year’s Eve celebrations). The trial court concluded that its exercise of common sense did not usurp the j…
-
Moss v. Michaels Management- Affordable LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…2017) (“[A] property owner ‘is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care to warn or guard against the harmful acts of a third party unless that third party's harmful behavior is reasonably foreseeable.’” (quoting Leitch v. City of Delray Beach, 41 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010))); Bryan v. Galley Maid Marine Prods., Inc., 287 So. 3d 1281, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). LEVINE, FORST and SHEPHERD, JJ., concur. ---PAGE 2--- * * * Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing. 2…
Authorities Cited
- McCAIN v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Pollock v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004)
- Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Graham v. Langley, 683 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)