Because landscape features are not dangerous when used for their intended purpose—and not for walking—the court held that landowners have no duty to render them safe for pedestrians or warn of hidden conditions. Id. at 208; see also City of Melbourne v. Dunn, 841 So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Wolf v. Sam's Club E., Inc., 132 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); TruGreen LandCare, LLC v. LaCapra, 254 So. 3d 628, 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept that the price sign was an inherently dangerous condition-which it clearly was not based on a review of the video evidence-Florida negligence law provides that “[s]ome conditions are considered so obvious and not inherently dangerous that they do not, as a matter of law, support liability for the breach of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.” TruGreen LandCare, LLC v. LaCapra, 254 So.3d 628, 631-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Earley v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Orlando, 61 So.2d 477, 478 (Fla. 1952) (recognizing that a “proprietor has a right to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses”).
Additionally, when a condition is concealed (that is, not reasonably discoverable by the invitee), and the landowner knows or should know about it, the landowner has a duty to warn of the condition. TruGreen LandCare, LLC v. LaCapra, 254 So.3d 628, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). That said, the existence of a condition that requires warning does not necessarily constitute a breach of the landowner's duty to maintain the premises, so long as he used the degree of care and prudence of an ordinarily prudent person in keeping the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
However, “some conditions are considered so obvious and not inherently dangerous that they do not, as a matter of law, support liability for the breach of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.” TruGreen LandCare, LLC v. LaCapra, 254 So.3d 628, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). This is because a “proprietor has a right to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own senses.
" Id. To determine whether the obvious danger doctrine applies, a court must "consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and the alleged dangerous condition." TruGreen LandCare, LLC v. LaCapra, 254 So. 3d 628, 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Here, Plaintiff has submitted evidence that Defendant ordinarily displays a "wet floor" sign in the Lounge, but did not have that sign on display the day that Plaintiff slipped and fell.
In its order granting summary judgment in favor of Simon, the trial court recognized that while an invitee is owed a duty to be warned of dangerous conditions which are, or should be, known to an owner and which are unknown to an invitee, landscaping features are generally found not to constitute dangerous conditions as a matter of law. The court relied on four cases: TruGreen Landcare, LLC v. LaCapra , 254 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Wolf v. Sam's East, Inc. , 132 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC , 82 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) ; and Taylor v. Universal City Property Management , 779 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The trial court distinguished a case relied on by Pio, Grimes v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc. , 194 So. 3d 424, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), because there was no evidence in this case that there was continuous and obvious use of the landscaped area as a pedestrian shortcut, and the court noted that there was no need for a shortcut path because the landscaped area was surrounded by a parking lot and sidewalk on all sides.