ALFREDO LOPEZ v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, etc. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed August 10, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D22-162
    Lower Tribunal No. 19-31342
    ________________
    Alfredo Lopez,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Miami-Dade County, etc., et al.,
    Appellees.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne Del
    Rio, Judge.
    Giasi Law, P.A., Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for
    appellant.
    Law Offices of Granoff & Kessler, P.A., and Roy E. Granoff, for
    appellees Nelidia Navarro and Eusebio Verrier.
    Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
    GORDO, J.
    Alfredo Lopez appeals a trial court order granting Eusebio Verrier and
    Nelida Navarro’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. We have jurisdiction. Fla.
    R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because the trial court properly granted the
    motion to dismiss, we affirm.
    On August 25, 2017, Lopez lost control of his vehicle and struck a
    guardrail after he drove over a pothole or defect that was covered with water
    on SW 187th Avenue in Miami-Dade County. Two years later, Lopez filed a
    complaint against Miami-Dade County and the Florida Department of
    Transportation for negligence alleging they failed to maintain the roadway in
    a reasonably safe condition. Lopez subsequently amended his complaint
    and added the two owners of the properties abutting the roadway where the
    accident occurred as parties: (1) J&A Nursery Inc. and (2) Eusebio Verrier
    and Nelida Navarro. Lopez asserted Verrier and Navarro were negligent for
    failing to maintain the proper elevation of the swale area by the roadway
    pursuant to Chapter 19, section 19-14 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
    Verrier and Navarro moved to dismiss Lopez’s complaint against them. The
    trial court held a hearing and later entered an order granting the motion to
    dismiss with prejudice. Lopez filed a motion for reconsideration and the trial
    court held another hearing. The trial court subsequently entered an order
    2
    stating it reconsidered its prior order but found it did not err in granting the
    motion to dismiss.1 This appeal followed.
    “We review orders granting a motion to dismiss under a de novo
    standard of review.” Williams Island Ventures, LLC v. de la Mora, 
    246 So. 3d 471
    , 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). Lopez contends the trial court erred by
    considering matters outside his complaint because it made a factual
    determination that Verrier and Navarro did not owe him a duty despite his
    complaint adequately demonstrating their legal duty. This argument fails
    because “duty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for the
    jury to decide.” McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 
    593 So. 2d 500
    , 503 (Fla. 1992);
    Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 
    851 So. 2d 781
    , 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“The
    duty element of negligence is a threshold legal question; if no legal duty
    exists, then no action for negligence may lie.”); Sewell v. Racetrac
    Petroleum, Inc., 
    245 So. 3d 822
    , 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting “while the
    tort of negligence requires the establishment of duty, breach, proximate
    cause, and damages, it is for the court to determine the existence of a duty.”).
    Accordingly, the trial court did not go beyond the four corners of his amended
    1
    Lopez’s claims against Miami-Dade County, the Florida Department of
    Transportation, and J&A Nursery currently remain.
    3
    complaint by considering whether Verrier and Navarro owed Lopez a legal
    duty.
    Further, the trial court properly determined Verrier and Navarro did not
    owe Lopez a legal duty. Section 19-14(B) of the Miami-Dade County Code
    provides a property owner is responsible for maintaining proper elevations
    within the swale. It does not, however impose liability on the property owner
    to private individuals for a violation or injuries caused by a violation of the
    section. Pursuant to Chapter 19, only the County may pursue an action
    based on an alleged violation. See Section 19-4.2 of the Miami-Dade County
    Code (stating if a property owner in violation of any of the provisions of
    section 19 fails to cure the violation after notice and reasonable time to come
    into compliance “the County shall have the option to enforce this Chapter”).
    When the County fails to include a provision imposing liability upon a
    property owner for injuries that occur because of an alleged code violation,
    an injured person cannot seek a remedy against that property owner based
    on the violation. See Woods v. City of Palatka, 
    63 So. 2d 636
    , 637 (Fla.
    1953) (noting an injured party had no claim against an abutting landowner
    where there was “no provision in the charter that an abutting landowner will
    be liable for injuries due to his failure to repair a sidewalk, [even] when [he
    was] required by ordinance to do so”). Therefore, this section of the Miami-
    4
    Dade County Code did not impose a legal non-delegable duty on Verrier and
    Navarro to motorists driving on the roadway.
    Importantly, here Lopez did not allege the accumulated water caused
    the defect, did not contend that Verrier and Navarro had a duty to repair the
    defect to the roadway, did not allege the accident occurred in the swale area
    Verrier and Navarro had an alleged duty to maintain and did not allege
    Verrier and Navarro had any prior warning or knowledge of the “defect” in
    the roadway or the accumulation of water that allegedly resulted because of
    the swale.2 Florida courts have declined to hold residential and commercial
    landowners accountable for injuries resulting from defects to areas or
    roadways owned by the City or County. See Gornto v. Marks, 
    311 So. 2d 177
    , 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (affirming a trial court order that found a city
    ordinance “did not impose upon the [business] owner of abutting premises
    liability for injury to a business invitee by reason of a defective public
    sidewalk”).
    Affirmed.
    2
    We note Lopez makes no allegation his injury falls within a foreseeable
    zone of risk in his third amended complaint.
    5