THIRD DISTRICT AFFIRMS VERDICT FOR TENANT SHOT DURING ROBBERY ATTEMPT– FORESEEABILITY AND NOTICE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED SUBMISSION TO JURY; NO REVERSIBLE ERROR FROM NOTE PASSING BY ALTERNATE JUROR OR TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO ALLOW IN CAMERA REVIEW OF JUROR NOTEBOOKS
Dama Holding LLC v. Guelmes, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2585 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 3, 2025):
After a jury trial, the trial court entered an amended final judgment in favor of the plaintiff tenant, Juan Guelmes, and the Third District affirmed.
The defendant landlord, Dama Holding LLC, owned several homes in a Homestead cul de sac and leased one to the plaintiff On August 29, 2014, while the plaintiff was outside cleaning his car, an unknown assailant attempted to take the chain around his neck; when he did not comply, the assailant shot him, and during the ensuing struggle shot him multiple additional times. The plaintiff sued for negligent failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and negligent failure to warn, alleging the defendant knew or should have known the premises and surrounding area were high crime and that similar criminal acts had occurred such that an attack was reasonably foreseeable absent proper security. The jury found the defendant negligent and the sole legal cause of the plaintiff’s damages, and awarded $4 million dollars.
On duty and foreseeability, the Third District held the trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. While landowners generally owe no duty to protect against unforeseeable criminal misconduct, a landlord-tenant relationship creates a duty to protect and warn against reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. Foreseeability is classically a jury question where the underlying facts and notice evidence are disputed.
The opinion details the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that, within the five-year period before the shooting, 351 crimes occurred within the relevant geographic grid (described as a very high crime area), including robberies, burglaries, thefts, aggravated batteries, and aggravated assaults with weapons, and it also details prior crimes on defendant’s cul-de-sac properties and in the rented home, along with opinion testimony that crime was foreseeable and tenants should have been warned.
The defendant also sought a new trial based on juror misconduct, after defense counsel observed jurors passing notes during trial and the court questioned jurors individually. The alternate juror admitted passing a note about testimony (including scars and disfigurement), and other jurors described what they saw. The court denied a mistrial, re-instructed the jury about not discussing the case until deliberations, and later denied a new trial, finding no reasonable possibility the incident affected the verdict and that any presumption of prejudice was rebutted