Hix v. Billen
284 So. 2d 209 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The duty owed by a landowner to a person on their premises depends on whether the injury results from a condition of the premises or from the landowner's active, affirmative negligence; in the latter case, ordinary negligence is the measure of care regardless of the person's status as an invitee or licensee.
Facts:
- Doris Hix asked her neighbor, Steven Billen, to assist her in starting her automobile.
- Steven Billen poured gasoline directly into the carburetor of Doris Hix's car.
- Steven Billen instructed Doris Hix not to turn the ignition.
- Despite the instruction, Doris Hix turned the ignition.
- The gasoline in the carburetor burst into flames, causing Steven Billen severe burns.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Billen initiated a lawsuit against Doris Hix for negligence, which involved a factual dispute for the jury concerning the circumstances of the injury.
- The case was reviewed by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, which issued an opinion (Billen v. Hix, 260 So.2d 284) holding that ordinary negligence was the measure of care for injuries caused by active conduct, as opposed to premises conditions.
- Doris Hix, as Petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida by filing a petition for certiorari, asserting a direct conflict with prior case law.
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 the duty of ordinary care, rather than a limited duty, apply when an injury to a person on a landowner's premises is caused by the landowner's active conduct or affirmative negligence, as opposed to a condition of the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Dekle, J.
Yes, the duty of ordinary care applies when an injury to a person on a landowner's premises is caused by the landowner's active conduct or affirmative negligence. The Court adopted the view that distinctions in the duty owed based on the injured person's status (e.g., invitee, licensee) relate only to the condition or use of the landowner's premises. When the injury is caused by the active conduct or affirmative negligence of the landowner, and the presence of the injured person is known, the standard of ordinary negligence applies, as in other negligent situations. The Court noted that the incident involving the car had no relationship to the condition of Doris Hix's premises; it merely happened to occur there. This ruling aligns with the 'great weight of authority and better reasoning' and expressly overrules prior conflicting Florida cases, such as Cochran v. Abercrombie, which applied a limited duty to licensees in active negligence scenarios. However, the limited liability rule for uninvited licensees and trespassers continues to apply with respect to alleged negligent conditions of the premises, given that their presence is not likely to be anticipated.
Dissenting - Boyd, J.
Justice Boyd dissented without providing a written opinion in the published record.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the application of premises liability distinctions in Florida, particularly regarding the landowner's active negligence. By drawing a bright-line rule between injuries caused by premises conditions and those caused by a landowner's active conduct, the court expands the circumstances under which a duty of ordinary care is owed. This reduces the landowner's ability to rely on the injured party's status (invitee, licensee) to limit liability for their direct, negligent actions. The ruling shifts focus towards the nature of the landowner's conduct and away from the static classifications of visitors, likely impacting future cases where active negligence is alleged on another's property.
