TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST TENANT WHO FELL ON “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” LOOSE TILES –LANDLORD WAS ON NOTICE AND HAD A CONTINUING DUTY TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FLOORING, EVEN WITH CONDITION THAT WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS.

Perez v. Belmont at Ryals Chase Condominium, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1939 (Fla. 2nd DCA Sep. 25, 2024):

A couple leased an apartment in 2018. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the landlord was responsible for the maintenance and repairs of foundations, floors, structural components and other areas. The lease prohibited tenants from making any alterations or improvements to the unit without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent.

Over the period that the plaintiff rented the unit, the floor tiles inside the sole entrance became loose, forcing the plaintiff to walk through the area where the loose tiles were to access his unit. On two occasions, the plaintiff’s wife complained about the loose tiles to the owner of the property management company and to the maintenance supervisor. In 2019, the plaintiff fell on the loose tiles.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious.

A landlord’s duty to its residential tenant can be properly divided into a pre-possession duty and post-possession duty. Before allowing a tenant to take possession of the residence, a landlord has a duty to reasonably inspect the premises, and to make repairs necessary to transfer a reasonably safe dwelling to the tenant, unless defects are waived by the tenant.

After the tenant takes possession, the landlord has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to repair dangerous defective conditions upon notice of their existence by the tenant.

Here, the loose floor tiles at the entryway of the unit were a dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s wife twice notified the landlord and property manager 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, both defendants had a continuing duty to repair the tiles.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed entry of summary judgment, finding that the trial court erred in determining that the owner and property manager owed no duty to the plaintiffs.