Florida premises liability law is grounded in ordinary negligence principles: a property owner or occupier must keep the place reasonably safe and warn of hidden dangers. Since March 24, 2023, most negligence claims—including slip and falls, negligent security, and other on‑property injuries—must be filed within two years because House Bill 837 cut the deadline in half.
At the same time, Florida adopted a modified comparative fault rule. These rules define the battlefield. Hurt on someone else’s property? Call 305‑891‑0211 now—our seasoned liability attorneys with 40+ years of results, are ready to move fast for you.
The Duty of Care Depends on Your Legal “Status” on the Property
Florida still sorts visitors into three main categories—invitees, licensees, and trespassers—and the owner’s duty changes with each label. Invitees (public or business) are there for a purpose connected to the owner’s business or because the property is held open to the public. Owners must maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and either fix or warn of dangers they knew or should have known about.
Licensees (often social guests) are owed warnings of non‑obvious hazards actually known to the owner, but the owner has less obligation to inspect for unknown dangers. Trespassers get the narrowest protection: the owner must avoid intentional harm, and for “discovered” trespassers, must refrain from gross negligence and warn of non‑obvious dangers actually known to the owner.
Why does this categorization matter? Because it dictates what you must prove. If you were shopping at a grocery store when you slipped, you are almost certainly an invitee, so your attorney will focus on whether the store should have known about the spill. If you were a friend dropping by a neighbor’s condo, you’re a licensee and must show the owner actually knew about the loose tile or broken step and failed to warn you. If you cut across a vacant lot at night, you’re likely a trespasser, and your claim hinges on showing the owner’s conduct was intentional or grossly negligent, or that you were “discovered” and not warned about a hidden danger.
Attorneys in North Miami often dig into small facts that shift status: Was there a “For Lease” sign inviting prospects in? Did the business routinely allow non‑customers to use the restroom? Did prior conduct by the owner amount to an implied invitation? These nuances matter because they can elevate a claimant from licensee to invitee—or prevent a defendant from downgrading someone to trespasser to dodge responsibility.
Children add another wrinkle: even trespassing children may trigger duties under doctrines like “attractive nuisance,” where owners must take reasonable steps to secure dangerous features that entice kids (pools, construction sites, abandoned refrigerators). While not codified in §768.075, Florida courts still recognize this principle, so Miami personal injury attorneys will ask about fencing, signage, and prior incidents involving minors.
Slip, Trip, or “Transitory Foreign Substance” Claims
Florida’s transitory foreign substance statute, §768.0755, puts the burden squarely on the injured person: you must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the spill, debris, or slick floor and failed to correct it. Constructive knowledge can be shown either by time (the hazard existed long enough that a reasonable store would have discovered it) or by pattern (it happened regularly, so the business should have anticipated it).
Because the statute shifted the burden in 2010, preparation is everything. A litigation attorney in Miami will immediately send preservation letters demanding surveillance video, inspection logs, and incident reports. If the property owner “loses” footage after notice, Florida courts can impose spoliation sanctions or instruct jurors that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendant. That threat alone often changes the settlement conversation.
Your lawyer will also scrutinize sweep sheets (cleaning logs), employee training manuals, and maintenance contracts. Did the store follow its own policy of inspecting aisles every 15 minutes? Are timestamps inconsistent? Are there recurring roof leaks in the same freezer aisle every rainy afternoon? These details support constructive notice. Depositions of managers and rank‑and‑file employees often reveal shortcuts—like filling out logs at the end of a shift or ignoring a chronic condensation problem.
Finally, §768.0755 doesn’t erase comparative fault. Defendants will argue you stared at your phone, wore unsafe footwear, or bypassed a caution cone—points that can slash or bar recovery under Florida’s modified comparative negligence rule (51% bars recovery post‑HB 837). A careful case buildout documents lighting levels, sight lines, and distractions deliberately created by the store (end‑cap displays, floor signage) to blunt those defenses.
Open and Obvious Does Not Automatically End the Case
The “open and obvious” doctrine is a favorite defense line: if the danger was plain to see, owners say they owed no duty. Florida courts partly agree—no duty to warn exists for conditions that are truly open and obvious. But that’s only half the story. The same courts hold that the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition remains, even when a hazard is visible. In other words, a landlord can’t leave a gaping pothole or a stairwell with no handrail and shrug because “anyone could see it.”
Whether a condition was open and obvious is usually a fact question. Courts look at lighting, crowding, distractions, prior incidents, and the condition’s inherent risk. A flat wooden pallet at ankle height near a store entrance might seem obvious—until you learn the pallet blended with the floor color and customers were funneled through a tight queue.
Even when the doctrine applies, it often shifts the fight to comparative fault instead of ending the claim. The defense will argue your share of blame should be high because you ignored what was in plain view. Since HB 837, pushing a plaintiff over the 51% threshold ends the case, so evidence about store design, code violations, and foreseeability becomes critical.
Strategically, plaintiffs can flip the doctrine: if the danger was obvious to you in a single glance, it was certainly obvious to the owner who walked past it dozens of times. That argument dovetails with the ongoing duty to maintain and with constructive notice principles under §768.0755. Used correctly, “open and obvious” becomes less a shield for defendants and more a springboard to prove they knew and ignored a danger that injured you.
Criminal Attacks and Negligent Security
HB 837 added §768.0706, giving multifamily residential property owners a presumption against liability for certain criminal acts if they implement specified security measures (camera coverage, lighting, 1 a.m.–6 a.m. locks, CPTED assessments, and employee training deadlines of January 1, 2025). That presumption isn’t automatic; owners must prove compliance. When they cut corners, the shield drops. If your apartment, hotel, or mall ignored basic security, Miami attorneys will document the lapses and fight the presumption with expert testimony and discovery.
Injured in Florida? Buchalter Hoffman and Dorchak Secures Evidence Fast
Our skilled premises liability attorney at Buchalter Hoffman and Dorchak is ready to investigate your injury, lock down the evidence, and confront insurers with facts—not excuses—so you can focus on healing. Two years can fly by, and comparative fault arguments get louder with delay. Call 305‑891‑0211 or use the firm’s secure form to contact us today; a prompt, informed strategy can be the difference between a denied claim and a full recovery.