Rocamonde v. Marshalls of Ma, Inc.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 3154, 56 So. 3d 863, 2011 WL 804029 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition is separate and distinct from their duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. The fact that an object is visible does not, as a matter of law, make the specific dangerous condition of that object open and obvious, especially if the dangerous component is obscured from view.
Facts:
- Maria Rocamonde was a frequent customer at a Marshalls store, visiting approximately once a week for over ten years.
- On February 2, 2007, Rocamonde was walking down a center aisle in the Marshalls store.
- She observed a mobile, 'S'-shaped clothing rack in the aisle.
- Clothing hanging from the top bar of the rack obscured the base from her view.
- As Rocamonde attempted to walk around the rack, she tripped over a piece of iron protruding from its bottom.
- Prior to the fall, Rocamonde had seen similar racks in the store but was not aware that their bases had a protruding steel part.
- Rocamonde fell forward and sustained injuries as a result of the trip.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Rocamonde filed a negligence action against Marshalls of Ma, Inc. in a Florida trial court.
- Marshalls moved for summary judgment, arguing the dangerous condition was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Marshalls, finding that Marshalls had no duty to warn against a patent and obvious condition.
- Rocamonde, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Florida 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 the presence of a mobile clothing rack in a store aisle constitute an open and obvious danger as a matter of law, thereby discharging the store owner's duty of care, when the specific feature that allegedly caused an injury—a protruding base—was obscured from view by hanging clothes?
Opinions:
Majority - Emas, J.
No. The presence of the clothing rack does not constitute an open and obvious danger as a matter of law because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the specific dangerous condition—the protruding base—was actually open and obvious. A property owner owes two distinct duties to invitees: 1) to warn of concealed dangers, and 2) to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The trial court erred by conflating these duties and focusing only on the duty to warn. The court emphasized that the 'open and obvious' nature of a hazard may discharge the duty to warn, but it does not automatically discharge the landowner’s separate duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. Citing precedent, the court reasoned that 'it is the dangerous condition of an object which must be open and obvious, not simply the object itself.' Because evidence suggested the clothes on the rack obscured the protruding base from Rocamonde's view, a jury must decide whether the dangerous condition was truly open and obvious and whether Marshalls breached its duty to maintain a safe premises.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between a landowner's duty to warn and the broader duty to maintain safe premises under Florida law. It curtails the ability of property owners to use the 'open and obvious' doctrine as a complete shield against liability at the summary judgment stage. The ruling establishes that the focus of inquiry must be on the specific condition that caused the harm, not just the general object. This forces a more granular, fact-intensive analysis, making it more likely that cases involving partially concealed dangers will proceed to a jury rather than being dismissed by a judge as a matter of law.
