Schoen v. Gilbert
436 So.2d 75 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A difference in floor levels is not an inherently dangerous condition as a matter of law, and a homeowner has no duty to warn a social guest of such a condition, even when it is obscured by dim lighting.
Facts:
- Sylvia Schoen was a social guest in Robert Gilbert's home.
- Gilbert's home was constructed with a six-inch step-down from the foyer to the living room.
- Gilbert invited Schoen to look around his home but did not accompany her.
- The area with the step-down was poorly lit.
- Schoen did not see the step, fell while entering the living room, and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Sylvia Schoen sued Robert Gilbert for negligence in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Gilbert.
- Schoen, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Gilbert, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to resolve a conflict between the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal and a decision from another district court.
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 homeowner have a legal duty to warn a social guest of a difference in floor levels when the condition is not readily visible due to poor lighting?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boyd
No. A difference in floor levels is not an inherently dangerous condition, therefore a homeowner has no duty to warn a guest of its existence as a matter of law. The court reasoned that changes in floor levels are a common and ordinary feature of building construction. Citing Hoag v. Moeller, the court held that such a condition does not become 'inherently dangerous' merely because of poor lighting. Individuals entering a home cannot blindly assume all floors are level and have a responsibility to look out for their own safety. Because the condition is not inherently dangerous, the question of a duty to warn is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a factual question for a jury.
Dissenting - Justice Adkins
Yes. A homeowner may have a duty to warn under these circumstances, and the issue should be decided by a jury. The dissent argued that while a step is not dangerous in itself, surrounding circumstances like the room being 'shrouded in semi darkness' could conceal the condition, creating a latent peril. The landowner's duty is to warn of such latent perils. The disagreement over the lighting conditions created a genuine dispute of a material fact — whether a reasonable and prudent person would have given a warning. Therefore, the case was not suitable for summary judgment and should have been presented to a jury to determine if the homeowner was negligent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Florida premises liability law, categorizing differences in floor levels as not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. By doing so, the court removes such cases from jury consideration, even when complicated by factors like poor visibility. The ruling limits the scope of a homeowner's duty to warn guests about common architectural features, placing a greater burden on visitors to observe their surroundings for their own safety. It resolves a conflict among Florida's district courts, creating a uniform standard that makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims based on falls from ordinary steps or changes in elevation inside a home.
Unlock the full brief for Schoen v. Gilbert