DEFENDANT OWED NO DUTY OF CARE RELATED TO A GRASSY MEDIAN NOT INTENDED FOR PEDESTRIAN USE—TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT

Sierra Orlando Properties v. Allen, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1903 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 22, 2025):

While it did not used to be the case, more recent cases have reiterated the rule that a landowner owes no duty of care to pedestrians who walk in areas not intended for pedestrian use.

There are factual scenarios which act like “exceptions” to the rule. Those scenarios include evidence where the landowner expanded the scope of its invitation to the invitee, thereby creating a duty where one might not have otherwise been. In those cases, there is evidence that the landowner somehow extended the scope of the invitation to include landscaped areas, for example, by putting trash cans in the grass. In other words, there is evidence that the landowners intended for pedestrians to enter the area. Conversely, there are also cases where there is no evidence that the defendants invited or allowed the plaintiffs to enter the landscaped areas, simply some evidence that some invitees had done so anyway on their own.

Here, the evidence showed that the plaintiff was injured when stepping over a curbed barrier and onto the lid of an irrigation box in an unpaved grassy median.

There was a sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot for pedestrian use, and the sidewalk was two spaces away from the plaintiff’s car. Still, as the plaintiff’s daughter explained, the plaintiff chose to negotiate the grassy median rather than use the sidewalk because it was closer to her truck.

Simply because pedestrians use the landscaped area for ingress and egress, or just because the grass was worn down, does not give rise to a duty.

Here, the plaintiff produced no evidence to show a defendant had invited or allowed her to enter the median (for example, there was no trash can in the middle of the grass) and thus there was no evidence that the defendant created a foreseeable zone of risk regarding the grassy median. The plaintiff simply walked through an area that she was not supposed to, and fell.

The court ruled that a directed verdict for the defendant was in order.