Davis v. DOLLAR RENT a CAR SYSTEMS, INC.
2004 WL 2623904, 909 So. 2d 297, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13858 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty of care to motorists whose view of an adjacent intersection is obstructed by foliage on the landowner's property is determined by the “foreseeable zone of risk” analysis, regardless of whether the property is commercial or non-commercial or whether the foliage is natural or artificial. Requests for admission seeking a pure conclusion of law do not require a response.
Facts:
- Twanda Green, an employee of Diamond Transportation Services, Inc., was driving in a procession of rental cars, shuttling them from one location to another.
- The fatal traffic accident occurred at the intersection of Sidney Hayes Road and Pine Street in Orlando.
- A traffic control sign at the intersection directed Twanda Green and others traveling on Pine Street to yield to traffic approaching on Sidney Hayes Road.
- As Twanda Green, driving the fifth of six vehicles, approached the intersection, she reduced her speed and slowly pulled out into the intersection to make a left turn.
- As Twanda Green proceeded through the intersection, she was hit broadside by a dump truck driven by Jose Das Garcia Guimaraes, which was approaching the intersection via Sidney Hayes Road.
- Twanda Green died as a result of the injuries sustained in this collision.
- Foliage located on property owned by Beverly Williams at the corner of the intersection allegedly obscured Twanda Green's vision of the intersecting roadway and approaching traffic thereon for a distance of twelve feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Cecilia Davis, as personal representative of Twanda Green's estate, filed a wrongful death action against several defendants, including Beverly Williams.
- Beverly Williams served requests for admissions asking Davis to admit or deny that Williams owed a duty of care to motorists passing through the adjacent intersection.
- Davis did not timely respond to the requests for admissions.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Beverly Williams, concluding that Williams did not owe a duty of care in this case.
- Davis appealed the summary final judgment in favor of Williams to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a plaintiff's failure to respond to a request for admissions regarding whether a defendant owed a duty of care establish as a matter of law that no such duty was owed? 2. Does the owner of non-commercial property owe a common law duty of care regarding foliage on the property that blocks a motorist's view of an adjacent intersection, potentially causing an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Sawayah, C.J.
No, the failure of Davis to respond to a request for admissions asking her to admit or deny that Williams owed a duty of care did not establish as a matter of law that no duty was owed. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.370, while permitting requests for admissions relating to opinions of fact or application of law to fact, makes no provision for requests seeking a purely legal conclusion. A request for an admission or denial regarding whether a duty of care is owed constitutes a purely legal conclusion, making such requests inappropriate and not requiring a response under prior case law. Yes, Williams, as owner of non-commercial property, did owe a duty of care regarding foliage on the property that blocked Twanda's view of the intersection, which allegedly caused the fatal accident. The trial court erred by applying a blanket rule of no common law duty for private landowners, instead of the “foreseeable zone of risk” analysis established in McCain v. Florida Power Corp. and clarified in Whitt v. Silverman. Whitt explicitly discarded the traditional distinction between artificial and natural conditions as outdated in determining a landowner's duty. Under McCain, a duty arises when a defendant's conduct foreseeably creates a broader "zone of risk" posing a general threat of harm to others, with the scope of duty increasing as the risk grows. The allegations that Williams owned the property, and that overgrown foliage on her property obscured the view of a dangerous intersection, creating a foreseeable zone of risk, are sufficient to establish a duty of care. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that maintaining the foliage would have been unduly burdensome. Policy arguments regarding "ruinous" liability for private landowners were rejected as speculative and inconsistent with the primary purpose of tort law to compensate wronged persons and incentivize reasonable conduct. The absence of prior accidents does not, as a matter of law, render a particular accident unforeseeable.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Griffin, J.
Judge Griffin concurred with the majority's conclusion that the failure to respond to the request for admissions did not establish as a matter of law that no duty was owed. However, he respectfully dissented on the question of whether the Williamses owed a common law duty to provide motorists a clear view of oncoming traffic across their non-commercial property. Florida historically has not recognized such a duty, and while McCain and Whitt introduced the “foreseeable zone of risk” analysis, Whitt's holding was explicitly limited to commercial properties in urban areas where the landowner's business activity (attracting vehicles) created the zone of risk and a need for "safe egress." In a non-commercial context, where no driver is attracted to the property for business, there is no similar basis for imposing such a duty. The landowner in this case did not engage in "conduct" that "created" the risk; the foliage simply grew. Imposing an undefined, affirmative duty on private landowners to trim foliage for the benefit of motorists, requiring them to anticipate third-party negligence, is an unsound policy that should be left to the legislature to define with clear standards, rather than left to a post-hoc jury determination. The setting of the accident was also not clearly "urban" as contemplated by Whitt.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of landowner liability in Florida, confirming that the "foreseeable zone of risk" doctrine, previously applied to commercial properties, now applies to private, non-commercial properties as well. By explicitly abrogating the traditional distinction between natural and artificial conditions on land for duty analysis, the court simplifies the legal framework for negligence claims against landowners. The ruling reinforces that the central inquiry for duty is one of general foreseeability of harm created by property conditions, moving away from classifications of property use or origin of conditions. This means plaintiffs may find it easier to establish a duty of care in negligence actions against private landowners, increasing the onus on such owners to proactively manage their property to prevent foreseeable risks to the public, particularly at intersections. The certification of the question to the Florida Supreme Court highlights the substantial public importance and potential for further development of this area of law.
