MACARIO VELASQUEZ PEREZ
v.
ANAYAT HUSSAINI
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.
A property owner or occupant owes a duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition and warn of latent perils known or should be known to the owner, but is not liable absent actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and sufficient evidence of causation.
[1] Under the common law rule of caveat lessee, a landlord is generally not liable for injury to the tenant's person or property once possession and control of the leased pre…
[2] The duty to protect others from injury caused by a dangerous condition on premises rests with the party who has control over access to the premises, whether that party is…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him.”
Statement of the general duty owed by property owners to invitees
Macario Velasquez Perez brought an appeal against Anayat Hussaini regarding an injury occurring on Hussaini's property in Miami-Dade County. The circu…
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 Premises Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-44 Lower Tribunal No. 20-180
________________
Macario Velasquez Perez, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Anayat Hussaini,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Serrano Farah Law, LP, and David T. Valero, for appellants. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Veterans Gas Co. v. Gibbs, 538 So. 2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (stating “[t]he common law rule of caveat lessee provides that once a landlord delivers possession and control of the leased premises . . . the landlord is not liable for injury to the property or person of the tenant”); Brown v. Suncharm Ranch, Inc., 748 So. 2d 1077, 1078 (Fla.
5th DCA 1999) (“The duty to protect others from injury resulting from a dangerous condition on a premises rests on the party who has the right to control access by third parties to the premises, be it the owner, an agent, or a lessee of the property.”); Prieto v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 803 So. 2d 780,
781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“In the absence of any record evidence that the
[defendant] had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity at that station, the [defendant] cannot be held liable as a matter of law for the incident.”); Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be known to him. An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.” (quoting Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1986))); Gooding v. Univ.
Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“[A plaintiff] must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.” (quoting William L.
Prosser, Law of Torts § 41 (4th ed. 1971))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Gloris Crawford and Edward Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Veterans GAS Co. v. Gibbs, 538 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Brown v. Suncharm Ranch, Inc., 748 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Prieto v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 803 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)