Bartley Investments, LTD. v. Menendez, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2676 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 19, 2025):

The plaintiff townhome owner was attacked in her fenced courtyard by a homeless man who beat her and attempted to rape her. She sued the owner of multiple units in the same community, alleging it allowed a “known dangerous condition” to exist at a particular townhome, because it permitted (or failed to remove) occupants who allegedly conducted ongoing drug activity that drew heavy traffic and created safety risks for other residents.

The defendant argued it owed no duty to protect the plaintiff from an off-premises criminal attack by a third party. It also moved for setoff based on the plaintiff’s settlements with the homeowners’ association and management company. The trial court denied the motions, and the jury found for the plaintiff.

The Second District affirmed. On the duty issue, the court framed the issue as whether the defendant could be liable for allowing a dangerous condition to flourish at its townhome when it had the means to correct it (including by removing unauthorized occupants). The court did not view the duty as a generalized one to prevent third-party crime off premises. Under the McCain/Kaisner principles, the court found that the pleadings and evidence supported a foreseeable zone of risk

On proximate cause and the directed verdict/JNOV issues, the court held the evidence was sufficient for a factfinder to conclude the attack was reasonably foreseeable in light of the ongoing “drug hole” conditions described at the subject unit, the testimony tying violence to that environment, and the testimony that the assailant was connected to the subject townhome and would not have been there, absent the continued occupancy. Because reasonable persons could differ, the issue properly remained with the jury.

Finally, the court affirmed denial of setoff. The defendant wished to set off the prior settlements, but never sought to add or blame the settling defendants as Fabre defendants, never asserted the two settling defendants were joint and several tortfeasors with it. Defense counsel advised that its position was simply that it was not negligent, and was not blaming any other person or entity. As such, the defendant waived its right to claim a set off.