Background
Theoharis Lekas vacationed at the Trump International Beach Resort in Sunny Isles, Florida, in August 2022. During his stay, when daily temperatures were approximately 95 degrees, he repeatedly walked and stood barefoot on the resort’s cement pool deck and private beach sand.
Lekas has diabetic neuropathy and did not feel the heat beneath his feet. After the skin on his feet began peeling, his condition worsened and ultimately required two hospitalizations and the partial amputation of his right foot. He sued entities that owned, operated, developed, or participated in operating the resort for negligence. The circuit court dismissed the action after concluding that the defendants owed no legal duty because the heat of the surfaces was open and obvious.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. It held that a premises owner has no duty to warn or protect a barefoot guest from a hot cement pool deck and beach sand under the Florida summer sun in these circumstances.
The court reasoned that cement pool decks and sandy beaches are common features of Florida life and are not inherently dangerous. Even assuming their heat presented a danger, it was sufficiently open and obvious that an invitee could reasonably be expected to discover it and protect himself. Lekas’s diabetic neuropathy did not convert the ordinary condition into a dangerous one or create a special duty for the landowner.
Key Takeaways
- A landowner is not liable for every injury occurring on its property and is not an insurer of invitees’ safety.
- Conditions that are common, innocuous, and open and obvious may be deemed non-dangerous as a matter of law.
- An invitee’s inability to perceive an otherwise ordinary and obvious condition because of a medical condition does not, by itself, create a special duty for the premises owner.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Florida’s open-and-obvious-condition doctrine at the duty stage, permitting dismissal where the alleged hazard is an ordinary feature whose risk is apparent through common experience. It also rejects the argument that a plaintiff’s particular sensory impairment alone enlarges a landowner’s duty concerning such a condition.