MUFLIH M. KAID, APPELLANT,
v.
STORE CENTRAL FOOD MARKET, INC., 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.
Muflih Kaid appealed the dismissal of his premises liability complaint against Store Central Food Market after he was injured by a falling air conditioner unit while helping with repairs at the store. The court reversed, holding that Kaid's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for premises liability by alleging the defendant's duty and breach.
Kaid's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for premises liability. The complaint alleged Kaid's status as an invitee, alleged that Store Central breached its duties to keep the property in reasonably safe condition and to warn of concealed dangers, and the complaint contained sufficient allegations from which proximate causation could reasonably be inferred.
[1] A plaintiff in a premises liability action must allege the defendant's duty to the plaintiff, the defendant's breach of that duty by alleging ultimate facts showing a rel…
[2] A plaintiff in a premises liability action must plead that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, or such causation must be reasonabl…
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“[A] plaintiff in a premises liability action must allege the defendant's duty to the plaintiff and the defendant's breach of that duty by alleging ultimate facts that show a relationship from which a duty is implied by law, and the acts and omissions that caused the injury, together with the allegation that they were negligently done or omitted.”
Establishes the elements required in a premises liability complaint
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKaid was visiting family members at Store Central Food Market in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. The store retained an individual named Moses to re…
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 Of Care To Invitees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are called upon to decide whether appellant, Muflih M. Raid’s, fourth amended complaint, which was dismissed below with prejudice, states a cause of action for premises liability. Because we find that it does, we reverse.
“[A] plaintiff in a premises liability action must allege the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff and the defendant’s breach of that duty by alleging ultimate facts that show a relationship from which a duty is implied by law, and the acts and omissions that caused the injury, together with the allegation that they were negligently done or omitted. The plaintiff must also plead that the [defendant’s negligence] was a proximate cause of the [plaintiff’s injury].” 41 Fla. Jur.2d, Premises Liability § 96 (1994) (footnotes omitted).
Specifically, in these types of cases we have held:
A property owner or occupier has two duties toward invitees: (1) to keep his property in reasonably safe condition and to protect the invitee from dangers of which he is or should be aware; and (2) to warn the invitee of concealed dangers which are or should be known to the owner or occupier and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered by him through the exercise of due care.
Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
In the instant case, Raid alleges that he was visiting family members in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew at the store they owned and operated called Store Central Food Market, Inc. An individual named Moses, retained by Store Central, was attempting to repair an air conditioner. Raid’s family members asked him to assist Moses in his repairs. While doing so, an improperly secured portion of the air conditioner fell on Raid, along with a ladder that was being used by Moses.
Raid’s complaint alleges his status as an invitee. It alleges that Store Central breached both of the previously mentioned duties that it owed to Raid. While the complaint does not specifically allege that Store Central’s negligence was the proximate cause of Raid’s injuries, it is sufficient if such causation may be reasonably inferred from the complaint’s allegations. Tampa & Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77, 64 So. 437 (Fla.1914).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order dismissing Raid’s fourth amended complaint with prejudice.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The LAS Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 228 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…aused the injury, together with the allegation that they were negligently done or omitted: The plaintiff must also plead that the [defendant’s negligence] was a proximate cause of the [plaintiffs injury].” Kaid v. [*103] Store Cent. Food Mkt., Inc., 668 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (alterations in original) (quoting 41 Fla. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 96 (1994)). Here, the trial court erred in denying Riverside’s motion for a directed verdict based on each of the first three elements (duty, breach, an…
Authorities Cited
- Levy v. Home Depot, Inc., 518 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Tampa & Jacksonville Ry. Co. v. Crawford, 67 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1914)