Arencibia v. Agra

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arencibia v. Agra

559 So. 2d 1226, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1990 WL 33113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2204

StatusPublished

This text of 559 So. 2d 1226 (Arencibia v. Agra) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arencibia v. Agra, 559 So. 2d 1226, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1990 WL 33113 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Jorge Arencibia appeals dismissal of his second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

Arencibia was visiting Jesus Agra at his home when two robbers entered and held up the occupants. In the course of the robbery Arencibia received gunshot wounds and Jesus Agra was killed.

Arencibia commenced the instant action against Agra’s estate, alleging that Agra was negligent by keeping large sums of money at his home, a practice which was generally known in the community. Aren-cibia also alleged that there had been one previous attempted robbery at Agra’s premises. Arencibia contended that this practice constituted allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the premises and that Agra was obliged to either post a security guard or take other measures to protect invitees. The trial court dismissed with prejudice.

A homeowner is entitled to hold his or her own personal property within his own [1227]*1227household. By definition thieves attempt to rob residential premises where they believe there are objects of value. The maintenance of items of value within a residence does not constitute a “dangerous condition” as that term is referred to in the law of premises liability. See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315, 343 (1965).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Jorge Arencibia appeals dismissal of his second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

Arencibia was visiting Jesus Agra at his home when two robbers entered and held up the occupants. In the course of the robbery Arencibia received gunshot wounds and Jesus Agra was killed.

Arencibia commenced the instant action against Agra’s estate, alleging that Agra was negligent by keeping large sums of money at his home, a practice which was generally known in the community. Aren-cibia also alleged that there had been one previous attempted robbery at Agra’s premises. Arencibia contended that this practice constituted allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the premises and that Agra was obliged to either post a security guard or take other measures to protect invitees. The trial court dismissed with prejudice.

A homeowner is entitled to hold his or her own personal property within his own [1227]*1227household. By definition thieves attempt to rob residential premises where they believe there are objects of value. The maintenance of items of value within a residence does not constitute a “dangerous condition” as that term is referred to in the law of premises liability. See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315, 343 (1965).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 So. 2d 1226, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2011, 1990 WL 33113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arencibia-v-agra-fladistctapp-1990.