Landlords Have Duty to Repair Apparent Dangerous Conditions in Tenants’ Residences

The firm’s latest Miami Herald “Real Estate Counselor” column was authored by Michael L. Hyman and appears in today’s edition of the newspaper. The article, which is titled “Landlords Have Duty to Repair Apparent Dangerous Conditions in Tenants’ Residences,” focuses on a recent ruling that adds clarity to the legal duty that Florida property owners owe to tenants to repair any unsafe or dangerous conditions, including those that are not readily apparent.  It reads:

. . . The decision in late September by the state’s Second District Court of Appeal adds clarity to the application of this state law that is vital to public safety. It stems from a lawsuit brought by Geraldo Perez, who together with his wife in June 2018 began renting and residing in a unit owned by the Belmont at Ryals Chase Condominium Association located in Zephyrhills near Tampa.

When the floor tiles directly inside the entrance to Perez’s residence became loose during his tenancy, his wife on two occasions alerted both the community’s maintenance supervisor and Webb Realty Consultants, which was the property management company retained by the association.

Perez’s suit alleges the loose floor tiles caused him to fall and sustain injuries in April 2019. It accuses Belmont and Webb of negligence in their failure to repair the tiles and allowing the dangerous condition to persist.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to it as a matter of law because “the alleged dangerous condition at issue in this action was open and obvious.” The trial court agreed and concluded that their continuing duty to exercise reasonable care in repairing dangerous conditions was “limited to conditions that were inherently unsafe or dangerous that were not readily apparent to [Perez].” Because Perez knew of the dangerous flooring prior to his fall, the defendants did not owe a duty to address it.

In the subsequent appeal, Perez argued that the trial court misinterpreted Florida law in finding that the association and property manager’s continuing duty to maintain the flooring was absolved by the fact that Perez knew of the condition or that it was open and obvious.

The Second DCA panel found that the loose tiles in this case can be considered dangerous because they were located at the sole entryway to the unit, increasing the likelihood of injury due to the inability to enter the unit through another safe entryway. It concluded the trial court misapplied a 2004 decision by the state’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in its finding that the landlord’s continuing duty to repair dangerous conditions was limited to those that were not readily apparent to the tenant.

That decision and another prior ruling focused on a landlord’s duty to inspect and repair dangerous conditions prior to tenants taking possession, but this was a case of a defect that was detected by a tenant after taking up residence.

“To require a tenant to provide notice to the landlord of dangerous defective conditions in order to trigger the landlord’s continuing duty to repair but then to discharge the landlord’s duty because of the tenant’s knowledge of the dangerous condition would completely insulate the landlord from liability,” concluded the panel in its unanimous opinion. It cited a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision and found that the defendants still had “a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon notice of their existence by the tenant, unless waived by the tenant.”

The ruling concludes that because the condition was dangerous and Perez satisfied his obligation to provide notice, the association and property manager had a duty to repair the tiles. It also explains that floor maintenance and repairs were the responsibility of the landlord in accordance with its lease agreement, and Perez could not as the tenant make repairs to the tiles or any other alterations without first obtaining the landlord’s written approval. As such, it was the landlord’s sole responsibility to rectify and repair the flooring.

The ruling concludes:

“Here, the loose floor tiles at the entryway of the unit were a dangerous condition, Perez’s wife twice notified Belmont and Webb of the loose tiles prior to his fall, and this notice of the defective floor tiles could never be mistaken as a waiver. Upon receiving notice of the dangerous condition, Belmont and Webb had a continuing duty to repair the tiles.”. . .

Michael concludes his article by noting that with this reversal of the lower court’s summary judgment, the Second DCA has sent a clear message to all Florida residential landlords: If they are alerted to a dangerous condition by a tenant, they must adhere to their duty to address and repair it. Otherwise, the potential injuries and legal liabilities could be significant, as it appears they may now become for this condominium association and property manager.

Our firm salutes Michael for sharing his insights into this recent appellate ruling with the readers of the Miami Herald. We write about important matters for community associations in this blog and our Herald column, which appears every two weeks on Sundays, and we encourage association directors, members and property managers to click here and subscribe to our newsletter to receive our future articles.