Casby v. Flint
520 So.2d 281, 1988 WL 15152 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A homeowner has no duty to warn a social guest of a change in floor levels, as this is not considered an inherently dangerous condition. This rule applies even when the change in floor level is obscured by commonplace circumstances such as overcrowding, because the possibility of varying floor levels is a matter of common knowledge that guests are expected to anticipate.
Facts:
- Warren and Rita Flint were homeowners who hosted a social gathering.
- Marilyn Casby attended the gathering as a social guest.
- The Flints' home contained a change in floor levels between rooms.
- The home was filled with an 'excessive number of people,' which obscured the change in floor level from view.
- Casby did not see the step down due to the crowd.
- Casby fell and sustained injuries when she encountered the unexpected change in floor level.
- The Flints did not warn Casby about the change in floor level.
Procedural Posture:
- Marilyn Casby filed a complaint for negligence against Warren and Rita Flint in a Florida trial court.
- The Flints filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the Flints' motion and dismissed Casby's case.
- Casby, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal, siding with the Flints, the appellees.
- The District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does obscuring a change in floor levels with an excessive number of social guests transform the condition into an 'inherently dangerous condition' that gives rise to a homeowner's duty to warn?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, J.
No. Obscuring a change in floor levels with a crowd of guests does not transform it into an inherently dangerous condition giving rise to a duty to warn. The court reaffirmed its precedent from Hoag and Schoen, holding that a difference in floor levels is not an inherently dangerous condition, and this status is not altered by common circumstances like dim lighting or overcrowding. Such conditions are so commonplace that the possibility of their existence is known to all, and a warning goes beyond the duty of reasonable care owed to an invitee. The court distinguished this case from those involving uncommon designs or optical illusions that create a hidden danger a prudent invitee would not anticipate, concluding that overcrowding does not constitute such an exceptional circumstance.
Concurring - Barkett, J.
I agree with the result because this case is controlled by the precedent set in Schoen v. Gilbert. However, I believe that the dissenting opinion in Schoen represents the correct view of the law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the precedent of Schoen v. Gilbert, establishing that common environmental conditions, like overcrowding, do not elevate a simple architectural feature like a change in floor level to an 'inherently dangerous condition.' The ruling reinforces a narrow interpretation of a landowner's duty to warn, placing a greater burden on guests to exercise caution for their own safety. Consequently, for a premises liability claim regarding a change in floor level to succeed, a plaintiff must allege more than a mere obstruction; they must demonstrate that an unusual design, optical illusion, or specific distracting condition created a hidden danger that a reasonable person would not expect.
Unlock the full brief for Casby v. Flint