LORETTA LIZZOTTE
v.
CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS
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.
A property owner owes invitees a duty to maintain approaches to the premises in a reasonably safe condition when those approaches are open to invitees in connection with their business on the premises.
[1] A property owner's duty to invitees to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition extends to all approaches, means of ingress, and means of egress that the owner ha…
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“The duty owed to invitees by an occupier of premises to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition includes and extends to approaches to the premises which are open to invitees in connection with their business on the premises, and which approaches are so located and constituted as to represent an invitation to visit the place of business and to use such means of approach”
From Shields v. Food Fair, 106 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), cited to establish the foundational duty of property owners to invitees
Loretta Lizzotte appealed a circuit court decision in a matter involving the City of Miami Springs and The Suco Investment Group, Inc., d/b/a Woody's …
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 Duty To Maintain Premises In Reasonably Safe Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Shields v. Food Fair, 106 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (“The duty owed to invitees by an occupier of premises to maintain them in a reasonably safe condition includes and extends to approaches to the premises which are open to invitees in connection with their business on the premises, and which approaches are so located and constituted as to represent an invitation to visit the place of business and to use such means of approach”). See also Gutierrez v. Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 604 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“A landowner is under a duty to invitees to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition. That duty extends to the means which the landowner has expressly provided for use by the invitees for ingress and egress”); Marhefka v. Monte Carlo Mgmt. Corp., 358 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fournier v. LeFEVRE, 734 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1984)…to another. People v. Judiz, 38 N.Y.2d 529, 532, 381 N.Y.S.2d 467, 344 N.E. 2d 399 (1976) (per curiam) “A toy gun which would fool nobody is still illegal under the State law if used with criminal intent.” Matter of Don R.B., 66 Misc.2d 279, 281, 320 N.Y.S.2d 813 (1971) “[A]n instrument that had no mechanism whatsoever for firing might be an imitation pistol even though it was not in fact dangerous to any one.” People v. Simons, 124 Misc. 28, 30, 207 N.Y.S. 56 (1924) “If a broken and inefficient pistol be…
Authorities Cited
- Shields v. Food Fair Stores OF Fla., Inc., 106 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Gutierrez v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 604 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Marhefka v. Monte Carlo Mgmt. Corp., 358 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)