Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC
0.86
The open and obvious nature of a hazard may discharge a landowner’s duty to warn, but it does not discharge the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
A shopping-center invitee tripped on a stump in a landscaped planting bed and sued the property owner for negligence. The trial court entered summary judgment for the owner, and she appealed.
The open and obvious nature of a hazard may discharge a landowner’s duty to warn, but not the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
[1]A landowner owes a duty to invitees to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent or concealed dangers.
[2]The open and obvious nature of a hazard may discharge a landowner’s duty to warn, but not the duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
[3]Some conditions are so open and obvious, or so common and innocuous, that they are held as a matter of law not to constitute a dangerous condition.
[4]A landowner generally has no liability for falls occurring when invitees walk on surfaces not designed for walking, such as planting beds.
[5]A landowner is not required to give an invitee warning of an obvious danger and is entitled to assume the invitee will perceive it.
[6]Landscaping features are generally not considered dangerous conditions as a matter of law.
Editorial summary generated from the opinion text — verify before filing
Dandal Dampier appeals a final summary judgment entered against him in a trip and fall case. We affirm.
Dampier visited Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC d/b/a Tires Plus (“Tires Plus”) on Enterprise Road in Orange City, Florida, to get an oil change and have the tires on his vehicle rotated. While Dampier’s vehicle was being serviced, he decided to walk to a McDonald’s restaurant down the street. To access a public sidewalk that runs in front of Tires Plus, he walked across a raised landscape planting bed. He successfully negotiated the planting bed on the way to the McDonald’s, but on his return, tripped on a stump in the planting bed and fell headlong into the parking lot, resulting in various injuries.
Dampier brought suit against Tires Plus, alleging that the planting bed was part of a “clearly defined walking path,” that the company had failed to inspect and maintain in a reasonably safe condition by removing stumps within the walking path, and that it had failed to warn of the dangerous condition created thereby. In its answer, Tires Plus denied that the planting bed was a walking path, denied any negligence, and asserted a number of affirmative defenses.