Read Smith v. Grove Apartments and draft a revised special jury instruction based on your reading of the case. we represent the Catletts in this case.

I LR : ] g | -8 d @) - [-] L ) A ) i ela[cIoR .\"{' ol ! L] Preview 513 =114 VY Go 0| RIS Smith v. Grove Apts._ LLC_ 976 So. 2d 582 (2).pdf RN ) Window Help a @ Smith v. Grove Apts., LLC Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District August 22, 2007, Opinion Filed - No. 3D06-688 Opinion by Green, J. Franklin L. Smith, tenant, appeals an adverse final summary judgment entered in his personal injury action against his landlord, Grove Apartments, LLC. ("landlord"). Smith allegedly sustained his injuries when he resorted to self-help to correct a defective condition of the parking lot after the landlord refused to do so. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the landlord based upon its conclusion that Smith's injuries were not forkseeable as a matter of law. Because foreseeability in this context is an issue for the trier of fact, and there are other genuine issues of material fact, the entry of summary judgment was error and must be reversed. The pleadings, record evidence, and reasonable inferences therefrom, which must be construed in the light most favorable to Smith as the non-moving party, reveal that this is a relatively simple negligence case. Smith resided as a tenant in an apartment complex owned by the landlord. He sustained personal injuries on July 28, 2002, when he fell from his step ladder. At the time, he was attempting to clear and trim back overgrown foliage above the parking lot of the leased premises. The landlord had permitted the tree branches and vines over the parking lot to grow to the point where they were scratching vehicles, causing power outages, and hitting motorists in the eyes as they attempted to enter and exit exercise self-help to alleviate this problem for himself and other tenants and invitees. In fact, according to Smith's testimony, the landlord's maintenance supervisor actually suggested that Smith cut the trees for himself. On the day of the accident, Smith placed his 12 foot aluminum single ladder against a holly tree that he described as "almost all limbs." He had with him a machete and chain saw that he utilized to remove tree branches. He fell from the ladder as he was reaching to pull a dead limb from the holly tree. As a result of his fall, he sustained serious bodily injuries. Smith filed the instant negligence action against the landlord. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the landlord owed Smith and the other tenants a duty to use reasonable care for the maintenance of the parking lot. It was further alleged that the landlord breached his duty by failing to trim back these overgrown trees in the parking lot after being put on notice of the same. As a result of the landlord's breach of its duty to maintain this common area, Smith alleged that he resorted to "self- help" to make the parking lot useable for himself and other tenants and invitees on the leased premises and was injured as a result. The landlord filed its motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the alleged improper maintenance was not the direct or legal cause of the tenant's injuries as a matter of law. Rather, the landlord essentially argued that I LR : ] g | -8 d @) - [-] L ) A ) i ela[cIoR .\"{g ol ! L] Preview 513 =114 VY Go 0| = RIS Window Help Qa @ Prior to his use of self-help to trim back this overgrown foliage, Smith had repeatedly complained to the landlord about this problem in the parking lot. However, the landlord refused and/or failed to take any corrective action. Prior to Smith's accident, Florida Power and Light came out to cut back those trees surrounding its power lines that were causing the power outages. Florida Power and Light, however, declined Smith's request to trim back the remaining overgrown trees because they didn't impact the company's power lines. Thus, after the landlord and Florida Power and Light both declined to trim back the remaining overgrown tree branches and vines in the parking lot, Smith decided to A Bj Smith v. Grove Apts._ LLC_ 976 So. 2d 582 (2).pdf %) RN ) 2 cause of his injuries. In response to this motion, Smith argued that the landlord had both a statutory and common law duty to maintain its parking lot properly as one of the common areas of the leased premises; the landlord breached this duty by not trimming back the overgrown trees and vines. He further argued that the landlord would be liable for his injuries if the jury found that his injuries were a foreseeable result of the landlord's breach of its duty. [...] The trial court granted the landlord's motion and entered final summary judgment in the landlord's favor. Although the trial court found that the landlord had a duty to his tenant to trim the trees and breached this duty when it Page 2 of 2 Smith v. Grove Apts., LLC REDACTED FOR PLA 2203 failed to do so, the trial court nevertheless found as a matter of law, that the tenant's injuries were not a foreseeable result since the tenant voluntarily performed the maintenance services using his own ladder and equipment. On appeal the tenant argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment where the issue of foreseeability in this case was one for the trier of fact. We agree and reverse. [...] protected by the statute or ordinance and whether the injury is of the kind generally intended to be prevented have been dealt with in terms of proximate cause and, as such, are subject to the determinations of the triers of fact.")(citations omitted). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that proximate causation is established "if prudent human foresight would lead one to expect that similar harm is likely to be substantially caused by the specific act or omission in question.... However, . . . it is immaterial that the defendant could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact 2088 L 11 IR B Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help L X J R Smith v. Grove Apts._ LLC_ 976 So. 2d 582 (2).pdf PPN Q@ foreseeable result since the tenant voluntarily performed the maintenance services using his own ladder and equipment. On appeal the tenant argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment where the issue of foreseeability in this case was one for the trier of fact. We agree and reverse. [...] In the context of a landlord/tenant relationship, the law is well settled that after a tenant takes possession of a residential dwelling unit a landlord has a continuing statutory duty to maintain common areas in a safe condition and to repair dangerous, defective conditions upon notice of their existence, unless otherwise agreed to by the tenant. [...] The parking lot area in the instant case is most assuredly a common area of the leased premises. As stated earlier, the lease agreement did not impose a duty upon the tenants to maintain the parking lot area. Therefore, the landlord retained its statutory duty to maintain the parking lot area in a clean and safe condition. The landlord's liability in this personal injury action appears to be primarily grounded upon its statutory violation of section 83.51(2)(a)3, in failing to properly maintain the parking lot. Accordingly, the threshold question is whether Smith comes within the class of persons this statute was intended to protect. [...] That is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact. Id. However, in this case, it cannot be disputed that Smith as a tenant, was within the protected class. The trial court's implicit legal determination then, that he was within the protected class, was therefore correct. Id. The remaining issues in this case are whether the landlord breached this statute by failing to trim back the trees; whether the injuries suffered by Smith are the type that this statute was intended to prevent; and whether the landlord's violation of the statute was the proximate cause of Smith's injuries. Bennett M. Lifter, Inc., Under well-established Florida law, these are all issues to be resolved by the trier of facts [**13] and the trial court reversibly erred when it entered final summary judgment in favor of the landlord in this case. [...] In fact, all of these remaining issues of fact have generally been addressed in terms of proximate causation. [...]"[ljn personal injury cases where liability is grounded in a statute or ordinance violation, questions of whether a plaintiff comes within the class of persons intended to be have been dealt with in terms of proximate cause and, as such, are subject to the determinations of the triers of fact.")(citations omitted). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that proximate causation is established "if prudent human foresight would lead one to expect that similar harm is likely to be substantially caused by the specific act or omission in question... However, . . . it is immaterial that the defendant could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact extent." [...] Additionally, proximate causation does not require an injury to result directly from the tortfeasor's act. Rather, proximate causation exists where the injury "results as a consequence so natural and ordinary as to be regarded as probable." [...] In this case, Smith claims that he, a tenant, was injured when he resorted to self-help to correct a deficiency in a common area of the leased premises after the landlord refused to act. Reasonable people could differ as to whether it was foreseeable that, upon the landlord's refusal to act, someone would ultimately take corrective measures to eliminate these overgrown trees in the parking lot, which allegedly scratched motor vehicles and hit motorists in their faces as they entered and exited their vehicles. As we observed in Bennett M. Lifter, Inc., it cannot be said in this case that the harm that resulted from the defendant's action or omission is so bizarre or has happened so infrequently that "in the field of human experience it could not have been reasonably anticipated." 480 So. 2d at 1339.[...] Similarly in this case, as stated earlier, the landlord had a statutory duty to make reasonable provisions for the clean and safe condition of common areas. See 83.51(2)(a)3. Fla. Stat. (2007). The issues of whether the landlord breached this duty by failing to trim back the trees in the parking lot and whether the injury sustained by the tenant in this case was of the type of injury that this statute was intended to prevent are questions of fact for the trier of fact. [...] Moreover, the question of whether the tenant's own actions was an intervening and independent cause of his injuries so as to relieve the landlord of any liability are also factual issues for the trier of fact. [...] Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, the summary judgment in this cause must be reversed and this cause must be remanded for further proceedings. Reversed. - IS