Switch to ADA Accessible Theme Close Menu
Florida Personal Injury Lawyers
$3,830,000

Catastrophic motorcycle accident resulted in a jury verdict.

$1,748,000

Auto accident, multi-car crash

$1,035,000

Auto accident involving defective airbag

$600,000

Death resulting from hospital turning away patient

$550,000

Auto accident involving tractor trailer

$345,000

Auto accident involving a work vehicle

$340,000

Slip and fall at a hotel bathroom

$115,000

Auto accident involving pedestrian. $115,000 in litigation instead of $15k presuit offer

Call: 844-200-0000
Free Initial Consultation
Do you opt in to being contacted via SMS texting or phone call?
 
protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms

Woman Shot in Apartment Complex Loses Premises Liability Case

The Florida Court of Appeals recently reached a decision regarding a woman who sued under the theory of negligent security in a premises liability case when she was shot in the common area of an apartment complex. The court made a point in this case to differentiate between the different categories of people under the state’s premises liability law as well as the varying levels of care that are required for each.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Denise Nicholson v. Stonybrook Apartments, LLC, Ms. Nicholson was shot in the leg by a third party while attending a party in the apartment complex’s common area. She had been told by the apartment complex’s former manager and police officers that she was not allowed at the complex, but she went despite the warnings.

She sued the apartment complex for negligence, claiming that “it failed to maintain its premises in a safe condition and [failed] to provide adequate security on the property, at and during the time of [the] injury.” The apartment complex argued that its duties towards Ms. Nicholson were limited because she was a trespasser at the time that she was shot.

At the trial court level, Ms. Nicholson attempted to argue that the case was one of ordinary negligence and not a premises liability case. Therefore, she argued, whether or not she was a trespasser or invitee is irrelevant to the proceedings. The trial court disagreed with her argument and ruled that the case should be treated like a case for premises liability.

The trial court instructed the jury that it must decide whether she was an invitee or a trespasser at the time that she was shot, and whether the apartment complex used the proper level of care for that type of person. The jury found that she was a trespasser at the time of the incident and found on behalf of the apartment complex in the case. Ms. Nicholson appealed the verdict to the Florida Court of Appeals.

Ruling of the Court

The appellate court first made the distinction between ordinary negligence cases and premises liability cases. For ordinary negligence, the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, regardless of their relationship. For premises liability cases, the duty of care is dependent on the plaintiff’s status as an invitee, discovered trespasser, or undiscovered trespasser.

Trespassers

Florida Statutes Section 768.075 states that “[a] person or organization owning or controlling an interest in real property . . . is not liable for any civil damages for the death of or injury or damage to any discovered or undiscovered trespasser.” However, the same section also states that “To avoid liability to undiscovered trespassers, a person or organization owning or controlling an interest in real property must refrain from intentional misconduct that proximately causes injury to the undiscovered trespasser, but has no duty to warn of dangerous conditions.”

Furthermore, the law provides that “to avoid liability to discovered trespassers, a person or organization owning or controlling an interest in real property must refrain from gross negligence or intentional misconduct that proximately causes injury to the discovered trespasser, and must warn the trespasser of dangerous conditions that are known to the person or organization owning or controlling an interest in real property but that are not readily observable by others.”

Negligent Security Cases

The appellate court also discussed whether cases of negligent security, which was claimed by Ms. Nicholson, falls under the umbrella of ordinary negligence or premises liability cases. The court found that multiple cases point to the situation being considered a premises liability case. In the case of Lane v. Estate of Morton, the plaintiff was attacked by an unknown third party while riding an ATV on private property. The court in that case found that the plaintiff was a known trespasser and thus was owed a very limited duty of care.

The cases of Medina v. 187th Street Apartments, Ltd. and Barrio v. City of Miami Beach also determined that the level of requisite care on the part of the landowner is determined by the category of person in a premises liability case when the plaintiff was involved in a matter of negligent security on the property. The case of Byers v. Radiant Group went further by explaining that a person’s relationship in a negligent security case can change from an invitee to a trespasser, and the according level of care in those cases will also adjust.

The Court of Appeals went further by saying that not only does the case law supporting this type of claim falling under premises liability, but it also makes logical sense. They juxtaposed ordinary negligence, which requires active negligence, to premises liability, which requires passive negligence like a failure to warn. Not only is the type of negligence different, but ordinary negligence cases can take place anywhere, whereas negligent security cases must take place on a specific piece of property.

Applicability to Nicholson Case

As a result of their findings, the Florida Court of Appeals ruled that Ms. Nicholson qualified as a known trespasser in this case because she was told to stay off of the property but she entered despite the warnings and was subsequently shot. Furthermore, her case was not one of ordinary negligence but of premises liability because she claimed negligent security as the proximate cause of her injuries. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court should stand, and the apartment complex is not liable for her injuries.

Call a Florida Premises Liability Attorney Now

If you or a loved one has been injured on someone else’s property, or if you have questions regarding how the outcome of this case may affect your claim in Orlando, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Tampa, or West Palm Beach, let the experienced premises liability attorneys at The Pendas Law Firm help. Call the office or contact us today for a private and free review of your case.

Read What Others Have To Say About Us

  • “I can’t express how much I appreciate this law firm. I had the honor to deal with attorney Daniel. He kept me updated on my case. I couldn’t ask for a better law firm. Daniel fought for me til the end and got me what I deserved. Thanks Daniel and your team for always being there to answer any of my questions. If I ever need a law firm again...”

    Terry Mcphillips
  • “Speedy & superb handling of clients & cases, kind & caring. Highly recommended professionals. They made everything very easy for us, were outgoing & polite. I would call them again if ever in need, rather than call the larger firms that need to advertise & brag about winnings…Pendas was a pleasant & more personal approach instead of...”

    Joseph Kestell
  • “Wow I called Pendas Law Firm the other day at their main intake line it was around 11 o’clock at night and I’ve got this wonderful representative his name was Jeffrey Alvarez. This guy was very professional and his compassion was out of this world I don’t know what I would do if I could not have got a hold of him...”

    Luis Sanchez
  • “Thank you for helping us in our time of need. This firm handled my father’s workers comp case, and helped us with every question we had, and we had a plenty. Thankful for the entire legal team!”

    Enilno Resu
  • “I just concluded a case with attorney Michael Sanchez and paralegal Camilo Lopez. I can only say they are exceptional. The customer service is unique, they have been battling alongside me since day 1. They are not only courteous and professional, but they also are amazing at their job. Thanks to them I got a great deal. I am glad I decided to use their services...”

    Israel Garcia
  • “Their attorneys are absolutely someone you want handling your car accident claim. They communicated with us promptly and thoroughly. I was very happy with our recovery. Already recommended them to others in the same circumstances, their staff speaks Spanish and you feel like in family.”

    Ian Brito
  • “Very Professional law firm. They explained to you every detail what to do according to the laws (worker’s compensation). Mr. Danilo Cruz is the best Lawyer and his team. They are very kind, friendly, responsible, I love this firm. They fight for their clients. AwesomeTeam!”

    Lau Rod