Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. v. Ayub
245 So. 3d 893 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant in a premises liability action generally owes no duty to protect invitees from third-party misconduct in an area where the defendant lacks control, unless the defendant's own conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk in that area.
Facts:
- Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. (CSP) ran a softball tournament at a public park owned by Miami-Dade County.
- CSP paid Miami-Dade County for the right to use several softball fields but did not rent or control the common areas open to the public outside of the rented fields and dugouts.
- Yasser Ayub was a member of a team participating in the tournament.
- On the morning of the tournament, Ayub’s team had a heated altercation with another team during a softball game, leading the umpire to declare both teams forfeited.
- Later that evening, a second fight broke out between members of the two teams in a common area of the park, outside of the rented softball fields and dugouts.
- Ayub was injured during this second altercation while allegedly attempting to keep the other players from fighting.
Procedural Posture:
- Yasser Ayub filed a premises liability cause of action against Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. (CSP) in circuit court, alleging CSP breached its duty to provide adequate security.
- During the proceedings before the trial court, CSP repeatedly raised the argument that it had no duty to provide security in the common area where the fight occurred because CSP did not have any control over that area.
- After hearing the arguments and evidence at trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ayub and against CSP in the amount of $319,914.71, and the trial court entered a final judgment.
- Thereafter, CSP filed a renewed motion for a directed verdict and a new trial, reiterating that Ayub failed to establish that CSP controlled the premises on which Ayub was injured, and thus, CSP owed no legal duty to Ayub.
- The trial court denied CSP’s renewed motion.
- CSP appealed the trial court's order denying its post-trial motion for a directed verdict or a new trial to the Third District Court of Appeal.
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 a softball tournament organizer owe a legal duty to provide security for its invitees in a common area of a public park, outside of the rented fields, where the organizer does not control access to that common area, even if some limited use of the common area occurred and prior altercations made a subsequent fight foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, C.J.
No, a softball tournament organizer does not owe a legal duty to provide security for its invitees in a common area of a public park, outside of the rented fields, where the organizer does not control access to that common area, because the duty to protect invitees from third-party misconduct is tied to control over the premises. The court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a directed verdict de novo, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and determines that the existence of a legal duty is a question of law. In premises liability cases involving negligent security, the legal duty to protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties is contingent on the defendant's control over the specific premises where the injury occurred. Control is typically established by demonstrating the right to control access to the property. Here, CSP only rented the softball fields and did not control the common area of the public park where Ayub was injured. Although Ayub presented evidence that CSP used the common areas to collect fees and post tournament results, this limited use does not constitute the type of control—specifically, the authority to control access to and from the common areas—necessary to impose a duty to provide security. The court rejected Ayub’s alternative argument that CSP had a duty based on a foreseeable zone of risk because CSP's conduct did not create the conditions that led to the fight in the common area, distinguishing it from cases where a defendant's actions extend risk beyond their property boundaries. Therefore, because CSP exercised no control over the common areas and did not create the dangerous conditions, it owed no legal duty to Ayub to secure that area.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that control over premises is the cornerstone of duty in negligent security premises liability claims. It clarifies that merely operating an event in proximity to or with limited ancillary use of a public common area does not transfer control, and thus, duty, to the event organizer for that public space. The ruling sets a high bar for extending liability under a 'foreseeable zone of risk' theory, requiring the defendant's affirmative conduct to have created the dangerous conditions, rather than merely having general foreseeability of harm. This precedent will be crucial for event organizers, landlords, and businesses operating adjacent to public or uncontrolled spaces, delineating the boundaries of their security obligations and limiting potential liability to areas over which they exercise genuine control.
