Sierra Orlando Properties Ltd Dba Caribe Royale Resort Suites V

Melissa Allen fell in a grassy median of Caribe Royale Resort Suites' parking lot after choosing to cross it instead of using an adjacent sidewalk. She stepped on an unstable irrigation box lid, which flipped up and caused her leg to fall into the equipment storage hole. Caribe Royale moved for directed verdict, arguing the area was not intended for pedestrian use and they owed no duty of care. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding as a matter of law that no duty existed because the grassy median was not designed for pedestrian use and there was no evidence Caribe Royale expanded its invitation to include that area.

Whether a landowner owes a duty of care to invitees who walk in areas of the property not intended for pedestrian use, specifically whether Caribe Royale created a foreseeable zone of risk regarding a grassy median in a parking lot that was not designed for walking and was bordered by a raised curb, and whether the denial of the motion for directed verdict was proper on the issue of duty in a negligence case.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the motion for directed verdict, holding that Caribe Royale owed no duty of care to Melissa Allen as a pedestrian who crossed through a grassy median in a parking lot. The court found the area was not intended for pedestrian use, as evidenced by the adjacent sidewalk and raised curb, and concluded that Allen's unauthorized use of the median without the property owner's knowledge could not expand the scope of the duty owed to her.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of Caribe Royale's motion for directed verdict and remanded the case for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Caribe Royale, concluding that Caribe Royale owed no duty of care to Allen for walking through the unpaved grassy median that was not intended for pedestrian use.

The court established that under Florida law, a landowner owes no duty of care to pedestrians who walk in areas not intended for pedestrian use. The scope of a landowner's duty is limited to the intended use of the premises as part of the invitation. Property owners generally owe two duties to business invitees: (1) duty to use reasonable care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition, and (2) duty to warn of latent or concealed dangers. However, there is no duty to make areas that are not designed for walking reasonably safe for that purpose or to warn that they are not safe for walking. The court distinguished cases where a duty existed (Stamm, Grimes) where the landowner expanded the scope of invitation by placing trash cans in landscaped areas, versus cases where no duty existed (TruGreen, Wolf, Pio) where there was no evidence the landowner invited or allowed use of the landscaped areas. The key test is whether the defendant's conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk.