Case ID: so2d_528/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. FERGUSON, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The FORTE TOWERS, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a Forte Towers Apartments, Appellant, v. Otto LEDERER and Helen Lederer, his wife, Appellees.
    No. 86-2817.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 10, 1988.
    
      Joe N. Unger, Ligman, Martin, Shiley, Neswiacheny & Evans, Miami, for appellant.
    Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory Horton, Miami, for appellees.
    Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellee Lederer sustained injuries when a parked car rolled down the entrance ramp at Forte Towers, the Miami Beach apartment complex in which Mr. Lederer resided. Lederer filed a lawsuit against Forte Towers, Inc. [Forte], and sought damages predicated upon Forte’s failure to maintain and supervise its premises in a reasonably safe manner. The jury awarded Lederer $142,000 but found him 30% negligent. Appellant Forte seeks reversal, contending that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict in its favor. We affirm.

The circumstances from which this litigation arose occurred when a car rolled down the entrance ramp of the apartment building from the parking area at the top and hit Lederer as he walked down the ramp. He sustained severe and permanent injuries. Although Forte Towers employed a doorman to ensure that cars were parked correctly and posted signs indicating “No Parking on Ramp” and “Please note parking spaces are reserved, see doorman for parking,” Forte allowed another tenant’s frequent visitor to park his car at the building entrance at the top of the ramp. As Mr. Lederer walked down the ramp, the visitor’s unattended car rolled down and hit Lederer.

On appeal, Forte challenges the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict. We find that the trial court properly refused to enter a directed verdict “since a case should never be withheld from the jury unless, as a matter of law, no proper view of the evidence could possibly sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla.1987). That standard was not met.

The record contains evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Forte was negligent in failing to maintain and supervise the area in a safe manner when it permitted drivers to park their cars without supervision. At trial, an expert witness testified that the parking configuration may have been responsible for the accident. The expert witness recognized that elderly tenants prefer walking down the ramp to descending the stairs. He found it probable that cars parked too close to the ramp’s “break point” would roll down the ramp. Furthermore, the jury could have concluded that Forte foresaw such an occurrence from the posting of warning signs and its employment of a doorman to supervise the area. This testimony precluded the court from granting a directed verdict.

Affirmed.

HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., concur.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting).

As a general rule the owner of a public building is not liable for injury to an invitee just because that invitee happened to be on the premises when injured by the actions of another invitee; in order for the owner to be liable “[i]t must be shown that the owner negligently failed where the law, custom, or innate danger requires diligence.” Heps v. Burdine’s, Inc., 69 So.2d 340, 341-42 (Fla.1954).

Conspicuously absent from the otherwise lucid majority opinion is a discussion of a specific duty owed to Mr. Lederer, breached by Forte Towers, which caused Mr. Led-erer’s injuries. The owner of the offending vehicle testified that he is a nurses’ aide who takes care of a tenant in the building and that on the day of the accident he (1) drove his car up the ramp, parked in an open parking spot, and locked the car as he had done in the past, (2) left the car with the transmission in the park position and the hand brake engaged, (3) returned to the parking spot two hours later to learn that the car had rolled backwards striking Mr. Lederer.

If an inclined parking area does pose an innate danger it is the product of a design or engineering flaw for which others might be liable. Nevertheless, due diligence would require no more of the building owner than posting signs warning against parking on the ramps — as was done. Inclined ramps are obvious and commonplace features of hotel and apartment building entryways, and the law has never imposed upon the owner of such buildings an impractical burden to park, or to inspect after parking, all vehicles driven by invitees onto the premises.

A directed verdict should have been entered for the defendant. 
      
      . Appellee also alleged that Forte breached its duty of care by violating the South Florida Building Code and the City of Miami Beach Zoning Code but abandoned these claims. The case proceeded on his claim of negligence in the operation of the parking area.
     
      
      . The dissenting opinion, at 402, n. 1 misconstrues the grounds for Forte’s liability which arose from its failure to maintain safe common areas, § 83.51(2)(a)3, Fla.Stat. (1985), and its failure to supervise the parking area, not from the "architectural or engineering building design” cited in the dissent; claims based on faulty design were abandoned. At 401, n. 1.
     
      
      .Forte also argues that the court erred in reading section 83.51, Fla.Stat. (1983), to the jury. This statute requires landlords to "make reasonable provisions for ... [t]he clean and safe condition of the common areas.” Section 83.-51(2)(a)3. We find no error. The instruction “contained an accurate statement of the law, ... the facts of the case supported a giving of the instruction and ... the instruction [was] necessary ... to properly resolve the issues in the case." Sears, 502 So.2d at 942.
     
      
      .In note two the majority cites a Florida Landlord and Tenant statute as imposing the duty which was breached. The provision in question, section 83.51(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), provides:
      Landlord’s obligation to maintain premises.
      ******
      2(a) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, in addition to the requirements of subsection (1), the landlord of a dwelling unit other than a single-family home or duplex shall, at all times during the tenancy, make reasonable provisions for:
      1. The extermination of rats, mice, roaches, ants, wood-destroying organisms, and bedbugs. When vacation of the premises is required for such extermination, the landlord shall not be liable for damages but shall abate the rent.
      2. Locks and keys.
      3. The clean and safe condition of common areas.
      4. Garbage removal and outside receptacles therefor.
      5. Heat during winter, running water, and hot water.
      Basic rules of statutory construction, including the principle ejusdem generis, see generally Dickerson, The Interpretation of Statutes (1975), militate strongly against a legislative intent to include safe architectural or engineering building design with the landlord's duties to provide for running water, rodent extermination, and garbage removal.