Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, which oversees Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, recently reversed a summary judgment in favor of a property owner facing allegations of negligence for an obstruction the plaintiff says led to him being struck by a vehicle.
Our Miami bicycle accident lawyers know that Florida is No. 1 in the nation for bicyclist fatalities and injuries, and Miami-Dade is ranked first in the state in both categories, according to research from the Florida Department of Transportation. That makes Miami the most dangerous place in the U.S. for cyclists.
While there are instances in which cyclists may hold some degree of responsibility for a crash, Florida is a pure comparative negligence state when it comes to determining fault. This means that even if the cyclist is at fault to some degree, he or she may still recover damages, minus his or her degree of fault.
More often than not, however, motor vehicle operators are at fault for collisions with cyclists, typically because they are distracted, drunk or simply careless. It is appropriate in these situations to file a personal injury lawsuit against the driver and/or his insurer to recover medical costs, past and future wage losses, and damages for impairment, scarring or damage to property.
There may also be cases in which other parties can be held liable for their role in contributing to the crash. For example, an employer may be held liable if the accident involved a commercial driver. A parent could be held responsible for the negligent actions of a teen driver. And the owner of a vehicle could also be held liable by virtue of the fact that they entrusted a dangerous instrument to an individual whom they knew or should have known was irresponsible.
In the case of Otero v. Gomez, recently before the 3rd DCA, the plaintiff sued a property owner, contending a concrete wall on his lot constituted a dangerous condition, which the owner negligently allowed to exist. According to court records, the cyclist rode along the sidewalk and into a crosswalk, where he was struck by a car pulling into the intersection. The cyclist said his view of oncoming traffic was blocked by a wall on the defendant’s property.
The wall had been built years earlier by the original developer, then altered by a previous owner without proper permits. An expert witness for the plaintiff was slated to testify the visual obstruction created by the wall violated both FDOT standards and county ordinances.
The property owner countered that he owed no duty of care to the plaintiff per the 2007 precedent set in Williams v. Davis. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court weighed whether the foreseeability of risk analysis was applicable to residential property owners. The court determined private landowners don’t have a duty to motorists for torts arising from foliage that is “wholly within the bounds of the landowner’s property.” Where there is overhang onto a public right-of-way, that’s a different story.
The property owner argued he couldn’t be held liable because the wall didn’t extend into the public right-of-way.
The trial court initially agreed, granting summary judgment. The 3rd DCA panel, however, reversed, finding summary judgment improper because it was effectively granted under the guise of a motion in limine. The plaintiff was not afforded due process of a full 20 days to respond to the motion, as spelled out in Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Whether the plaintiff will be successful in his claim remains to be seen. Still, Florida property owners hoping to avoid such litigation would do well to ensure their foliage is kept neat, trimmed and off the roadway, and that any other fixed property features don’t block lines of sight for motorists, pedestrians or cyclists.
Although the Williams case set a precedent that tends to protect residential property owners, it isn’t applicable to commercial property owners. The latter have been held to a higher standard, and are generally required to maintain their premises to allow safe entry and exit and use of surrounding roadways and sidewalks.
In many cases, the court has relied on the 1992 state Supreme Court ruling in McCaine v. Florida Power, which established that a defendant could be held liable if actions (or inaction) create a broader zone of risk that posed a general harm to others.
If you have been the victim of a Miami bicycle accident, contact the Law Offices of Jose M. Francisco.
Recommended Articles:
Florida Supreme Court Expands Titled Owner Liability in Accident Cases
But For A Light Bulb – Landlord Premises Liability, Tenants And Guests
Florida Swimming Pools Can Be Liability for Owners Who Disregard the Law