EDUARDO CUESTA
v.
JOSE ESTEVANELL
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 cannot be liable for injuries caused by third-party misconduct unless the owner controlled the premises and had actual or constructive knowledge of a reasonably anticipated specific danger.
[1] A property owner generally has no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing physical harm to others.
[2] A property owner is liable for criminal acts by third parties only when the act was reasonably anticipated and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the speci…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“An owner of a premises is only required to protect against criminal acts by third parties if the act is reasonably anticipated and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific danger.”
Standard for premises liability regarding third-party criminal acts, citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caruso
Eduardo Cuesta appealed a judgment from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court involving allegations of injury on a premises. The case involved claims agains…
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 Foreseeability Of Criminal Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez and Francesca M. Stein, for appellee Royal Palm Estates Association, Inc. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. v. Ayub, 245 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[G]enerally, if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the defendant controlled the premises where the plaintiff was injured, then the defendant cannot be liable for failing to protect the plaintiff from third-party misconduct.”); Knight v. Merhige, 133 So. 3d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“[T]here is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent [that person] from causing physical harm to another.” (quoting Carney v. Gambel, 751 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caruso, 884 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“An owner of a premises is only required to protect against criminal acts by third parties if the act is reasonably anticipated and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific danger.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Varone v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…Inst. 1965)). "One of the limited exceptions to the general ‘no duty' rule is that a duty arises when the defendant has a ‘special relationship' with the plaintiff," such as businesses toward their customers. Id. at 370 (quoting Knight v. Merhige, 133 So. 3d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)). Likewise, an exception may arise when the defendant is in actual or constructive control of the premises. Id. A premises owner/operator owes to a business invitee a duty to guard against subjecting the invitee to dangers…
Authorities Cited
- Carney v. Gambel, 751 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Knight v. Merhige, 133 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. v. Ayub, 245 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Canwoot Dononovan v. State, 884 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)