New Ruling From Third DCA Helps Clarify Premises Liability

A recent ruling from Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has helped to clarify the state’s position on premises liability questions. In Rodriguez v Jaimes (2025), the appeals court held that specifically in questions related to premises liability, a landowner or property owner cannot evade responsibility for an accident by claiming they no longer hold control over the premises. This is important because it may open up future opportunities for mortgagees to hold a landlord liable if something goes wrong.

Holding Negligent Owners Liable

The general law of premises liability is fairly straightforward; in Florida, there are three types of individuals who might visit a person’s land. There are invitees, who are usually there on the business of the owner; licensees, who are there on their own business, and there are trespassers, who sneak onto the property without permission. If someone in one of these groups is injured, it can take a long time to straighten out.

The owner owes a duty of care to every visitor, even to trespassers, but exactly what the duty requires will vary. For example, the duty owed by an owner to invitees is the highest possible, asking that they are warned about dangers on the premises that are not open and obvious. The duty to a trespasser is simply to refrain from injuring them. The duty to a child trespasser is much more complex and difficult.

Absence Does Not Remove Liability

In Rodriguez, the property owner’s chief argument was that he had ‘lost control’ of a certain piece of property, as he no longer oversaw or used that yardage. The court reviewed security footage and other relevant information, such as deed records, and still ruled against the owner. The opinion cited that since the owner could still “access, maintain, and benefit from the property,” it still belonged to him and he could not avoid liability on that score.

As one might imagine, this ruling may lead to a significant improvement for those who believe they have been injured due to a negligent owner. If an owner simply claims they were not present, or they had designated authority to a specified agent, this is not sufficient rationale to get them completely off the proverbial hook. For cases involving premises liability, this may be a powerful tool to establish liability on the part of an absent owner or operator.

Contact A Maitland Premises Liability Attorney

Premises liability can involve a lot of details that are all too easy for the average person to miss or accidentally omit. A Maitland premises liability attorney can help ensure that your case incorporates all the little things that can make all the difference. Call the Hornsby Law Group today to schedule a consultation – we are ready to help.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2025/3d24-0937.html