METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
KRASSIMIR IVANOV, 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.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to Krassimir Ivanov for injuries sustained during a criminal assault in Calusa Park on Key Biscayne. The appellate court reverses, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of prior similar criminal activity at the specific park to establish that the attack was foreseeable.
A landowner has a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks only when the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on that specific premises. The plaintiff's evidence of crimes at a different park was insufficient to satisfy this requirement, and therefore the attack was not foreseeable as a matter of law.
[1] A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee from a criminal attack on the premises only when the attack is reasonably foreseeable.
[2] A landowner's duty to protect an invitee from criminal attack arises only when the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on th…
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 landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. The landowner's duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises.”
Establishes the legal standard for landowner liability in criminal attack cases, requiring foreseeability based on knowledge of similar prior crimes at that specific location.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKrassimir Ivanov was injured during a criminal assault in Calusa Park on Key Biscayne. Ivanov sued Metropolitan Dade County for damages. Ivanov presen…
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.
COPE, Judge.
Metropolitan Dade County appeals a final judgment awarding damages to plaintiff-ap-pellee Krassimir Ivanov for injuries Ivanov received during a criminal assault in Calusa Park on Key Biseayne. We conclude that the County’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted on the indistinguishable authority of Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989), which stated:
A landowner has a duty to protect an invitee on his premises from a criminal attack that is reasonably foreseeable. The landowner s duty arises only when he has actual or constructive knowledge of similar criminal acts committed on his premises. In the case before us, the record discloses that no violent crimes were reported to Dade County in the two years prior to the attack on Ameijeiras; Amei-jeiras introduced no evidence that Dade County knew of the existence of violent criminal activity in Bird Drive Park. In the absence of proof that it had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity in Bird Drive Park, Dade County may not be held liable for the attack on Ameijeiras because, as a matter of law, the attack was not foreseeable.
534 So. 2d at 813-14 (citations omitted; footnote omitted; emphasis in original). Plaintiff presented evidence of crimes which occurred in Crandon Park, a different park on Key Biscayne, but introduced no evidence regarding prior similar criminal activity in Calusa Park. Under Ameijeiras, plaintiffs evidence was insufficient to go to the jury.
It is unnecessary to reach the County’s other points on appeal.
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the County.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prieto v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 803 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ble.2 In the absence of any record evidence that the County had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity at that station, the County cannot be held liable as a matter of law for the incident. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We do not reach the issue of sovereign immunity, as the issue of duty is disposi-tive. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Dubon, 780 So. 2d 328, 330 n. 2 (F…
-
Vazquez v. Lago Grande Homeowners Ass'n & Centurion Protective Servs., Inc., 900 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…prior offenses, giving rise to the forseeability of future ones, may be deemed indispensable to recovery. See Prieto v. Miami-Dade County, 803 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002); Metropolitan Dade Co. v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade Co., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989); Levitz v. Burger King Corp., 526 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Admiral…
-
Casecuberta v. City OF Coral Gables, 774 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Ivanov, 689 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), review denied, 698 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1997); Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla.1989).…
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
- Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)