Macario Velasquez Perez v. Anayat Hussaini

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 28, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0044
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 28, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-44 Lower Tribunal No. 20-180 ________________

Macario Velasquez Perez, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Anayat Hussaini, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Serrano Farah Law, LP, and David T. Valero, for appellants.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Veterans Gas Co. v. Gibbs, 538 So. 2d 1325, 1327

(Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (stating “[t]he common law rule of caveat lessee

provides that once a landlord delivers possession and control of the leased

premises . . . the landlord is not liable for injury to the property or person of

the tenant”); Brown v. Suncharm Ranch, Inc., 748 So. 2d 1077, 1078 (Fla.

5th DCA 1999) (“The duty to protect others from injury resulting from a

dangerous condition on a premises rests on the party who has the right to

control access by third parties to the premises, be it the owner, an agent, or

a lessee of the property.”); Prieto v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 803 So. 2d 780,

781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“In the absence of any record evidence that the

[defendant] had actual or constructive notice of similar criminal activity at

that station, the [defendant] cannot be held liable as a matter of law for the

incident.”); Crawford v. Miller, 542 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)

(“The duty of the landowner to a business invitee is to maintain the

premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn the invitee of latent

perils which are known or should be known to the owner but which are not

known to the invitee or which, by the exercise of due care could not be

known to him. An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive

that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own

senses, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an

2 obvious danger.” (quoting Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1986), review denied, 500 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1986))); Gooding v. Univ.

Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“[A plaintiff] must

introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that

it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial

factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is

not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or

conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the

duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.” (quoting William L.

Prosser, Law of Torts § 41 (4th ed. 1971))).