Property Manager’s Duty to Inspect and
Repair
Tenant is hurt tripping over threshold weather
stripping and claims property managers failed to inspect premises
Markell v. Mi Casa LTD., Court of Appeals of Florida, 4th Dist., No.
97-1109 (1998)
Question before the court:
Do property managers have a duty to inspect, and to use
reasonable care to repair dangerous conditions in any property they manage?
Facts of the case:
Markell moved into an apartment managed by GFS
Management of Florida Inc. MIG Camden Inc. took over management of' the apartment, and
then a few months later it sold the complex. Two weeks after the sale, Markell tripped on
the rubber weather stripping attached to the metal threshold at her apartment door and was
injured.
Markell sued both management companies claiming they
were negligent, because they failed to inspect the premises and failed to correct a
dangerous condition.
Markell admitted she lived in the apartment for six
months and had stepped over the threshold daily. She called a maintenance expert, who
testified that the weather stripping was poorly installed and was a "hidden
trap" that was unknown and undiscoverable to her. However, her expert believed that
the defect would have been discovered by one the management companies if they did even
cursory inspections. The expert also testified that by allowing the dangerous condition to
continue it was simply a matter of time before someone tripped.
The management companies asked the court for judgment
without a trial, arguing the weather stripping was "open and obvious." They also
said they couldn't be liable since they no longer owned or operated the apartment.
Case dismissed
The court dismissed the claims against both management
companies, finding the condition of the threshold was obvious. The court ignored the
testimony of Markell's expert.
Appealed
Markell appealed, claiming the property managers should have inspected the premises
before she took possession and had a duty to use reasonable care to repair dangerous
conditions even after she moved in.
DECISION: Reversed:
Markell deserved a trial on her claims against both
property managers.
The issue was whether the original managers transferred
a reasonably safe dwelling and used reasonable care to repair a dangerous condition, and
whether the subsequent managers exercised the same degree of care. Markell's expert said a
minimally experienced maintenance person would have discovered the alleged defect. Whether
the alleged defect was obvious and Markell should have noticed it - thereby relieving the
managers of liability - was a factual question that only a jury could resolve.
Also see: Crawford v Miller, 542 So.2d 1050 (1989).
Mansur v. Eubanks, 401 So.2d 1328 (1981).
|