Ray v. Tampa Windridge Associates, Ltd.

2 Citing cases

  1. Johnston-Gebre v. Ih4 Prop. Fla.

    23-CV-61136-RUIZ/STRAUSS (S.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    However, regardless of whether any exculpatory clauses in residential leases may be enforceable, paragraph 6 of the Mold Addendum is void and unenforceable under the plain language of section 83.47. Cf. Ray v. Tampa Windridge Assocs., Ltd., 596 So.2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (examining the interplay between sections 83.47 and 83.51). Accordingly, Defendants' argument for dismissal based on the Mold Addendum must be rejected.

  2. Grant v. Thornton

    749 So. 2d 529 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 6 times
    In Grant v. Thornton, 749 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), where the tenant was injured in a fire, the complaint alleged that the landlord had created a dangerous condition on the premises by negligently maintaining the front door which contained a double cylinder deadbolt, requiring a key to be used to exit from the inside, in violation of Manatee County building and fire codes.

    This court dealt with a similar situation involving alleged inadequate locks, contrary to the provisions of section 83.51, Florida Statutes, and held that it was the responsibility of the landlord to make reasonable provisions for adequate locks, even where a release was signed by the tenant. See Ray v. Tampa Windridge Assoc., Ltd., 596 So.2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The overriding emphasis in the Ray case is that landlords and tenants are controlled by the provisions of chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes.