CITY OF MIAMI, PETITIONER,
v.
MAURICIO AMELLER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality has a duty to maintain its public parks in a reasonably safe condition and may be held liable for negligent operation of playground equipment that violates its own or industry standards, distinguishing municipalities from private landowners who may invoke the 'no-duty doctrine' under Hillman and Alegre.
A municipality has a duty to maintain its public parks in a condition reasonably safe for public use and may be held liable for negligent operation of playground equipment that violates its own or industry standards. The complaint stating such allegations sufficiently sets forth a breach of duty and states a cause of action, and should not have been dismissed.
[1] A municipality has a duty to maintain its parks in a condition reasonably safe for public use.
[2] A complaint alleging a municipality's violation of its own safety standards for playground equipment states a cause of action for negligence.
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“We see no reason, however, why Hillman and Alegre should protect a municipality or other public agency from liability for the negligent operation of playground equipment. Public safety and welfare demand that a public agency be responsible for meeting its own standards at the very least.”
Establishes the distinction between private landowner liability and municipal liability, and the court's rationale for imposing a duty on public agencies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Miami constructed and maintained monkey bars in its public park without using recommended standard cushioning materials beneath the equipm…
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 Breach Of Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
We have for review Ameller v. City of Miami, 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which directly and expressly conflicts with Alegre v. Shurkey, 396 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The issue here is whether a complaint alleging that the city negligently placed monkey bars in its public park over a hard-packed ground surface states a cause of action.
The third amended complaint alleged that the City of Miami (city) improperly constructed and maintained the monkey bars playground equipment in its public park by failing to use one of the recommended standard cushioning materials under the monkey bars. The third amended complaint charged the city with negligence in violating its own standards, as well as playground industry standards, for the proper ground surface needed beneath such equipment. The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the third amended complaint failed to state a cause of action. The district court reversed, agreeing with Judge Ervin’s dissent in Alegre. We agree with the district court that the Amellers’ complaint should not have been dismissed with prejudice.*
In Alegre the defendants were private landowners who failed to provide an impact-absorbing ground surface under the monkey bars where a neighbor child fell and suffered injuries. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Alegre majority affirmed because the complaint failed to allege “that the monkey bar contained latent defects, that it was negligently constructed or operated or that there was any present danger that one of tender years could not readily comprehend.” 396 So. 2d at 248, quoting from Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, 72 So. 2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1954). Judge Ervin dissented from the portion of Alegre applying this “no-duty doctrine” to deprive injured invitees of a jury trial where the risk of injury was patent. 396 So. 2d at 251-52.
We agree with the Alegre majority that Hillman required the dismissal of a negligence action against a private landowner whose yard did not have a cushioning ground surface beneath the monkey bars. We see no reason, however, why Hillman and Alegre should protect a municipality or other public agency from liability for the negligent operation of playground equipment. Public safety and welfare demand that a public agency be responsible for meeting its own standards at the very least. The Amellers’ third amended complaint charged the city with violating playground industry, as well as its own, standards for the proper cushioning ground surface under the monkey bars. These allegations sufficiently set forth the city’s breach of duty to persons using the monkey bars.
Our conclusion does not make the city an insurer of the safety of all who use its free public parks. A municipality does, however, have a duty to maintain its parks in a condition reasonably safe for public use. Lisk v. City of West Palm Beach, 160 Fla. 632, 36 So. 2d 197 (1948). That duty does not impose strict liability upon the city in any sense.
Accordingly, we approve the district court’s reversing the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. We remand with instructions to reinstate the Amellers’ action if the complaint is amended.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and EHRLICH, JJ„ concur. SHAW, J., concurs in result only.
*
We note that the poorly drafted third amended complaint fails to allege how Mauricio Ameller was injured. As a bare minimum, a complaint should indicate what happened; this one did not and must be amended before the Amellers can proceed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grace v. The City OF Miami, 661 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…e in the park lest they wander into the street in front of ongoing traffic. The mere fact that a free lunch for such children is added to this invitation would not appear — at least without more — to change this result. See City of Miami v. Ameller, 472 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 1985);. Dennis v. City of Tampa, 581 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1991). Nonetheless, on this record, it is impossible to determine exactly what the City offered in its summer lunch program, and thus the sum…
-
Cusick v. City OF Neptune Beach, 765 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…rict, insofar as it was applied to municipalities and other public agencies, but refused to extend liability “against a private landowner whose yard did not have a cush [*178] ioning ground surface beneath the monkey bars.” City of Miami v. Ameller, 472 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla.1985).1 The court concluded with the following observations: We see no reason, however, why Hillman [v. Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, 72 So. 2d 668 (Fla.1954) ] and Alegre should protect a municipality or other public agency from liabilit…
-
Collias v. Gateway Acad. of Walton Cnty., Inc., 313 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…vely higher degree of care for their safety than to adults. That degree of care is commensurate with the attending facts and circumstances of each case.” Burdine’s, Inc. v. McConnell, 1 So. 2d 462, 463 (Fla. 1941); see also City of Miami v. Ameller, 472 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 1985) (approving the Third District decision adopting Judge Ervin’s opinion in Alegre v. Shurkey, 396 So. 2d 247, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (Ervin, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“It has long been acknowledged that a child of…
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
- Hillman v. Greater Miami Hebrew Acad. (two cases), 72 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1954)
- Lisk v. City of W. Palm Beach, 160 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1948)
- Honesto Alegre v. Shurkey, 396 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Mauricio Ameller v. City OF Miami, 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Echevarria v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 447 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)