ELIZABETH MARIA SLAATS AND HENK SLAATS, APPELLANTS,
v.
SANDY LANE RESIDENTIAL, LLC, ET AL., 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.
The plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a premises liability case involving a fall from a step down at a hotel pool area. The court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the step down constituted an open and obvious condition, precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the step down presented a unique, special hazard and whether it was truly an open and obvious condition. In negligence cases dependent on expert testimony and in premises liability actions where factual disputes exist, summary judgment should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances and matters should be submitted to a jury.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when genuine issues of material fact exist.
[2] In negligence cases, especially those dependent on expert testimony, summary judgment should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances.
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“Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment that the trial court must apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElizabeth Maria Slaats suffered injuries from a fall while exiting a hotel pool area owned by Sandy Lane Residential, LLC and Gansevoort South, LLC. T…
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 Open And Obvious Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
Elizabeth Maria Slaats and Henk Slaats (“the plaintiffs”) appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of Sandy Lane Residential, LLC, and Gansevoort South, LLC (“the defendants”). We reverse.
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries Mrs. Slaats sustained from a fall while exiting a hotel pool area. The plaintiffs claim the fall was caused by a step down which created a dangerous condition.
After some discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The defendants claimed that they had no liability because the step down was an open and obvious condition. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs filed the affidavit of an expert stating that the step down presented a unique, special hazard. The trial court agreed with the defendants, and entered summary judgment in their favor.
On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs assert that discovery has yet to be completed. Secondly, the plaintiffs assert genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the step down presented a unique, special hazard.
On the other hand, the defendants contend that the trial court properly entered summary judgment because they had no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition. We agree with the plaintiffs that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment.
*321Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). In negligence cases, especially those dependent on expert testimony, summary judgment should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances. See Lombard v. Exec. Elevator Serv., Inc., 545 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In premises liability actions, where issues of fact or differing inferences from the facts exist, Florida courts generally choose to let a jury decide. See, e.g., Javits v. RSMO Independence Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 738 So.2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hadley v. Davjoy, Inc., 613 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hogan v. Chupka, 579 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Fletcher v. Petman Enters., Inc., 324 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Pensacola Rest. Supply Co. v. Davison, 266 So.2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
Here, the plaintiffs presented some evidence that the step down created a dangerous condition. Specifically, Elizabeth testified that she was unable to see the step down because it was uniform in color and the afternoon sun was shining directly in her eyes. Further, the plaintiffs presented the affidavit of an architectural expert stating that the step down presented a unique, special hazard because the drop was hidden and unexpected. Thus, genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved which preclude summary judgment.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants, and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greene v. Twistee Treat U S a, 302 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ing evidence, a jury could conclude that the hole in the pavement was not so open and obvious that the defendants could reasonably expect that it would be discovered by an invitee such as Greene. See, e.g., Slaats v. Sandy Lane Residential, LLC, 59 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("[Plaintiff] testified that she was unable to see the step down because it was uniform in color and the afternoon sun was shining directly in her eyes."); Moultrie v. Consolidated Stores Int'n. Corp., 764 So. 2d 637, 639–…
-
Reina I. Echevarria and Jorge Echevarria v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 306 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…comply with the Florida Building Code and, if so, whether such failure concealed the step’s presence and location from the vantage point of Mrs. Echevarria as she exited the model home for the first time.5 See Slaats v. Sandy Lane Residential, LLC, 59 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment in favor of a premises owner who successfully argued that a step down in a hotel pool area was an open and obvious condition because “the plaintiffs filed the affidavit of an expert stating that th…
-
Ortega v. JW Marriott Inv., LLC, 405 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…to the Echevarrias, we conclude there is an issue of material fact as to whether Lennar . . . created a hidden danger (i.e., an optical illusion) on its property that a prudent invitee would not anticipate.”); Slaats v. Sandy Lane Residential, LLC, 59 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Here, the plaintiffs presented some evidence that the step down created a dangerous condition. Specifically, Elizabeth testified that she was unable to see the step down because it was uniform in color and the afternoon sun…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Hogan v. Chupka, 579 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Fletcher v. Petman Enters., Inc., 324 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Lombard v. Executive Elevator Serv., Inc., 545 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Pensacola Rest. Supply Co., Inc. v. Davison, 266 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Javits v. Rsmo Independence Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 738 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Gore v. State, 613 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Hadley v. Davjoy, Inc., 613 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)