Background
Scott Hale managed a Domino’s Pizza restaurant operating on premises leased from Sleiman Enterprises, Inc. Water began leaking from the roof into the kitchen. The commercial lease provided that only Sleiman, or its designated roofing contractor, could access the roof. Unable to investigate the source of the leak themselves, Domino’s reported the issue to Sleiman and Hale placed garbage cans to contain the water.
About seven days later, Hale observed no active leak and the floor appeared dry. Believing the issue was resolved, he removed the garbage cans. Shortly thereafter, Hale slipped and fell in a wet area while walking past the oven. He sued Sleiman, alleging the landlord owed a duty to timely investigate and address the leak. Sleiman moved for summary judgment, arguing that the leak originated from a defective hood vent and that the lease required Domino’s to maintain the vent, relieving Sleiman of any duty.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth DCA reversed, holding that Sleiman owed Hale a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Applying Florida’s “zone of risk” framework from McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992), the court found that a duty arises where a defendant’s conduct foreseeably creates a general threat of harm to others. The lease terms—which prohibited Domino’s from accessing the roof—were “one facet of the general facts” relevant to the duty analysis under Clay Electric Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2003).
Critically, because only Sleiman was authorized to enter the roof to investigate, Domino’s could not discover the source of the leak or determine whether the hood vent was the cause. While the lease provision requiring Domino’s to maintain the vent might be relevant to other issues (such as comparative fault or causation), it did not relieve Sleiman of its duty to investigate a reported hazard that only Sleiman could access. The court also rejected Sleiman’s argument that the danger was open and obvious, noting that under Florida law, an obvious danger discharges only the duty to warn, not the duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition.
Key Takeaways
- A commercial landlord who retains exclusive access to part of the premises (here, the roof) owes a duty of reasonable care to timely investigate reported hazards in those areas, even if the tenant is responsible for maintaining related equipment.
- Lease provisions allocating maintenance responsibilities do not automatically eliminate a landlord’s duty of care; they are one factor in the overall duty analysis but do not override the zone-of-risk framework.
- Florida’s open-and-obvious-danger doctrine discharges only the duty to warn—not the duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for commercial landlord-tenant relationships throughout Florida. It establishes that retaining exclusive control over a portion of the premises creates a corresponding duty to investigate hazards in those areas when reported by the tenant. Commercial property owners cannot insulate themselves from liability simply by allocating maintenance responsibilities to tenants while simultaneously denying tenants access to investigate the source of a hazard. For personal injury practitioners, this case provides strong authority for overcoming summary judgment where a landlord’s exclusive control creates a knowledge gap that only the landlord can fill.