Case Name: Anthony PALUMBO, Appellant, v. LIL GENERAL STORES CORPORATION, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Julius Finkelstein, David Alper and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-07-25
Citations: 453 So. 2d 1170
Docket Number: No. 83-2015
Parties: Anthony PALUMBO, Appellant, v. LIL GENERAL STORES CORPORATION, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Julius Finkelstein, David Alper and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees.
Judges: HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 453
Pages: 1170–1171

Head Matter:
Anthony PALUMBO, Appellant, v. LIL GENERAL STORES CORPORATION, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Julius Finkelstein, David Alper and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellees.
No. 83-2015.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 25, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1984.
Nancy Little Hoffmann of Hoffmann & .Burris, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Harry A. Gaines, Miami, for appellant.
William R. Lemos and Kevin P. O’Connor of Lanza, Sevier, Womack & O’Connor, P.A., Coral Gables for appellees — Lil General and Liberty Mut.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Tutan, O’Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees— Finkelstein, Alper and Aetna.

Opinion:
LETTS, Judge.
The appellant was beaten in the parking lot of a convenience store. He filed suit claiming that the store owed him the duty to keep the parking lot safe because prior criminal activity had occurred there.
The convenience store argued there had been no prior beatings and that this partic ular attack was not foreseeable. The trial judge agreed and granted summary judgment. We reverse.
There had previously occurred both disorderly conduct and an aggravated assault on the premises. Upon the authority of Allen v. Babrab, Inc., 438 So.2d 356 (Fla.1983), we believe the trial judge must be reversed. As Babrab noted, "Foreseeability of an intervening cause is a question for the trier of fact." Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment in favor of the convenience store must be reversed.
Without further comment we do, however, affirm the summary judgment in favor of the convenience store's landlord.
AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.