IAN SOKOLOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
OCEANIA I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
Ian Sokoloff appeals a summary judgment in favor of Oceania I Condominium Association in a slip-and-fall case. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and applying the obvious danger doctrine to bar Sokoloff's premises liability claim.
The court held that summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine issue of material fact and the Association was entitled to relief as a matter of law under the obvious danger doctrine, which shields property owners from liability for injuries caused by open and obvious dangers.
[1] Summary judgment is intended to determine if sufficient evidence exists to warrant a trial or formal hearing.
[2] A case should not proceed to trial if the only likely outcome is a directed verdict, to avoid unnecessary expense.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.”
Establishes the purpose and standard for summary judgment review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSokoloff suffered a slip-and-fall injury on the condominium association's premises. The injury was allegedly caused by a mat on the floor. The dangero…
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 Obvious Danger Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
In this slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff, Ian Sokoloff, appeals the final summary judgment in favor of the Oceania I Condominium Association. “Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.” Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So.2d 1195, 1200 (Fla.2006). The stated objective of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action” is ill served by sending a case to trial only to have the judge direct a verdict. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010; Martin Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So.2d 1105, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“A party should not be put to the expense of going through a trial, where the only possible result will be a directed verdict.”).
Here, there was no genuine issue of material fact and the Association was entitled to relief as a matter of law. See Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla.1952) (“The presence of the mat upon the floor and its construction was, or should have been, obvious to the [plaintiff].... If the mat was dangerous at all (which we do not decide), the danger was not latent or concealed, but patent and obvious, and the ordinary use of her senses by the appellant would have disclosed it to her.”); Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So.3d 697, 698-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“The obvious danger doctrine provides that an owner or possessor of land is not liable for injuries to an invitee caused by a dangerous condition on the premises when the danger is known or obvious to the injured party, unless the owner or possessor should anticipate the *665harm despite the fact that the dangerous condition is open and obvious.”) (citation omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mobley v. Homestead Hosp., Inc., 291 So. 3d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…, LLC, 272 So. 3d 500, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (same); Shands v. Cty. of Marathon, 261 So. 3d 750, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (same); Perez-Rios v. Graham Companies, 183 So. 3d 478, 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (same); Sokoloff v. Oceania I Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 201 So. 3d 664, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (same). 5 See also Diaz v. Casino Café, Inc., 271 So. 3d 1066, 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (same); Gorrin v. Poker Run Acquisitions, Inc., 237 So. 3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (same); Perez-Gurri Corp. v. McLeod, 238 So. 3d…
-
Diaz v. Casino Café (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…of law.” Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 2006). Given the record before us, there was no genuine issue of material fact and the appellee was entitled to relief as a matter of law. Id.; See Sokoloff v. Oceania I Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 201 So. 3d 664, 664–65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Affirmed.…
-
Conrad v. THE Boat House of Cape Coral, LLC, 331 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…ed) (quoting De Cruz- Haymer v. Festival Food Mkt., Inc., 117 So. 3d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also Greene, 302 So. 3d at 484. In fact, in granting summary judgment the trial court cited two cases, Sokoloff v. Oceania I Condominium Ass'n, 201 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), and Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), which recognize that the owner is not liable under the obvious danger doctrine "unless the owner or possessor should anticipate the harm despite the fact tha…
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
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2006)
- Abarca v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Martin Petroleum Corp. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 769 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Spatz v. Embassy Home Care, Inc., 9 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)