Welcome to My Home – Please Don’t Sue Me

A lot of people blame someone else for their problems. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the arena of lawsuits for injuries. A best friend can sue best friend when injured and money might be available. Let’s take a look at some cases addressing homeowner liability.

In Smith v. Mayes, the owner was selling a home. The home was listed for sale and as part of the sales effort a real estate broker showed the home to a prospective buyer. The broker partially opened the garage door and the prospective buyer, thinking the door was fully raised, hit her head on the door. The prospective buyer sued the homeowner. The buyer lost.

The court explained that the homeowner had a non-delegable duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. But there was no evidence that the premises were not in reasonably safe condition. Any negligence was on part of the broker in partially raising the door and perhaps even more importantly on behalf of the person injured by not paying attention.

The Smith case explains that to avoid liability, a homeowner must use reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. That is not an easy standard to apply as it will be interpreted in light of all relevant factors including age, light conditions and even activity. Other Florida cases apply the standard in different circumstances.

In Meyer v. Torrey,  an 8-year-old social guest was injured playing football in the homeowner’s yard. The child’s eye was pierced by the thorn on a bush while the child was diving to catch a football. The claim for the child was that the homeowner was negligent planting the bush because the homeowner knew children would be playing in the yard and was negligent in maintaining the bush.

The trial court ruled the claim could not stand and the appellate court agreed. The appellate court explained that most shrubbery in a Florida yard would cause some type of injury when dived into. The court reiterated that a homeowner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition. The court explained landowners have a duty to warn those invited onto the premises of concealed perils that are known or should be known to the landowner and which are unknown to the invited person and could not be discovered through the exercise of due care.

The Meyer court explained that the mere occurrence of an accident does not give rise to an inference of negligence. The court also explained that a mere possibility of causation is not enough to make a homeowner liable for injury. The court explained that the evidence established the bush was not located in an area where children were intended to play. It was located outside of the grass area of the yard and relatively close to the home’s porch. Injury from its thorns could only occur by falling or running into it. The homeowner in Meyer was not liable for the injury to the child.

What about when someone falls where there is a change in elevation? In Allen v. Young, a party guest fell where there was a change in elevation between patio and the pool areas of the yard. In Rice v. Whitehurst, a guest was injured when falling into a sunken living room. The courts explained in both cases that a homeowner has no duty to warn a guest of a change in floor level or elevation because multiple levels is not itself a dangerous condition. The homeowner only has a duty to warn if the change in elevation is an uncommon design or mode of construction creating a hidden danger that a prudent invitee would not anticipate, thereby transforming multiple levels into an inherently dangerous condition.

In contrast, a homeowner was liable for injuries from a fall over change in floor level in Kupperman v. Levine. In that case, a dining room table and chairs were centered over a change in floor level in the middle of the room. All the chair backs lined up because some of the chairs had longer legs than others to accommodate the different floor levels. The court ruled that created the illusion of a level floor and with it liability.

In Glanzberg v. Kaufman, a guest fell on the front steps while leaving a home. The trial court ruled there was no valid claim against the homeowner and dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed and sent the case back for further proceeding. The appellate court explained that an expert had testified the steps had construction defects, did not have uniform height and depths and did not comply with code. The expert opined that it was highly likely someone would fall and further, that the steps were an optical illusion and not in safe condition. The appellate court did not hold the homeowner liable, but ruled the trial court was wrong in dismissing the case before determination by the jury. That sent a message.

In Calhoun v. Wedda, a 2-year-old deaf child picked up and ran with a screwdriver. A house guest pursued the child, rounded a couch and stepped into a hole for an air duct that the homeowner had exposed while tiling the floor. The homeowner claimed the accident was caused by the child running with the screwdriver and that the homeowner had no duty to warn. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed.

The appellate court explained that actions of the child did not cause the guest injuries and there were enough facts to require the case be fully heard to determine if the homeowner had breached a duty to the guest. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Homeowners have also found they may be subject to liability for failing to pick up after their children when someone trips over a toy. In Whitten v. State Farm, a guest stepped on one of the homeowner’s child’s wheeled toys and fell. The trial court decided the homeowner was not liable and dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed. The appellate court did not find the homeowner liable, but explained there was enough evidence that the case should be submitted to the jury.

Reasonable care and reasonably safe are sufficiently vague to encourage lawsuits whenever someone is hurt visiting another’s home. The takeaway from these cases is that a homeowner should make every effort to ensure premises are safe, which means even a tiny defect that a homeowner may live with every day is a time bomb for liability.