LAURI SUE LOMILLO AND SANTIAGO LOMILLO, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
HOWARD JOHNSONS COMPANY, 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.
The court reversed summary judgment for Howard Johnson's Company, holding that foreseeability of robbery is a question of fact when there is a substantial history of similar crimes at an adjacent motel with the same name and in the immediate vicinity, not a matter of law.
A defendant cannot obtain summary judgment on the ground that a robbery was not foreseeable as a matter of law when the record shows a substantial non-remote history of similar crimes at an adjacent motel bearing the same name and in the immediate vicinity.
[1] Foreseeability of criminal acts on a defendant's premises is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury when the surrounding area has a substantial history of similar cri…
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“it is a question of fact whether, even though by a stroke of good fortune a defendant's actual premises had not theretofore been the site of violent crime, the defendant could nonetheless foresee its likelihood based upon the fact that his surrounding and immediate neighbors had a substantial history of being victimized by such crime.”
The court explaining that foreseeability is a factual question dependent on crimes in the immediate vicinity, not just on the defendant's own premises.
Plaintiffs Lauri Sue Lomillo and Santiago Lomillo were robbed at a Howard Johnson's restaurant. The defendant Howard Johnson's Company sought summary …
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
PER CURIAM.
The summary judgment for the defendant, which was bottomed on the trial court’s ruling that, as a matter of law, a robbery was not foreseeable on the defendant’s premises, is reversed upon a holding that the defendant did not conclusively show a lack of foreseeability where the record reflects that there was a substantial non-remote history of similar crimes (a) at the adjacent motel which, although not owned and operated by the entity that owns and operates the defendant-restaurant, bears the same name as the defendant and shares certain services with the defendant and (b) in the immediate vicinity. See Green Companies v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Despite appellee’s urging to the contrary, this court’s statement in Admiral’s Port Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983), that “[ejvidence of similar crimes committed off the premises ... is not probative of foreseeability,” must be read in the light of the facts of that case, which showed that the past violent crimes had occurred “substantial distances away from the premises.” In our view, it is a question of fact whether, even though by a stroke of good fortune a defendant’s actual premises had not theretofore been the site of violent crime, the defendant could nonetheless foresee its likelihood based upon the fact that his surrounding and immediate neighbors had a substantial history of being victimized by such crime.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Czerwinski v. Sunrise Point Condo., 540 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ere was a history of crimes occurring on the premises against persons and property, within a five-year span, the trial court erred in ruling that the attack on the appellant was not foreseeable as a matter of law. See Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Medina v. 187th Street Apts., 405 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). REVERSED AND REMANDED.…
-
Singer v. 3675 Bird Rd., Inc., 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…URIAM. We affirm the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment. The criminal attack on appellants was not foreseeable; thus, as a matter of law, appellees had no duty to take steps to prevent its occurrence. See Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Admiral’s Port Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.3d DCA), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Chateloin v. Flanigan’s Enter., Inc., 423 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Badillo v. DeVivo, 161 Ill.App.…
-
Foster v. PO Folks, Inc., 674 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and this includes the duty to protect such customers from violent criminal conduct which is reasonably foreseeable. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1983); Lomillo v. Howard Johnsons Co., 471 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Odice v. Pearson, 549 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). This foreseeability requirement can be met by proving that the proprietor knew of or should have known of a dangerous condition on the premises that was likely to cause harm t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Admiral's Port Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Feldman, 426 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- The Green Cos. v. Divincenzo, 432 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)