Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Robert-Blier v. Statewide Enterprises, Inc.
Citations: 890 So. 2d 522; 2005 WL 17837Docket: 4D03-4932
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 4, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
The court addressed the liability of a security contractor hired by a condominium association for injuries sustained by a third party on the premises. The central issue was whether the contractor, which provided limited security services under an oral agreement—specifically, one unarmed guard to patrol and report suspicious activities—could be held liable for failing to provide additional security measures. A visitor was assaulted in the parking lot, leading to a lawsuit against the contractor and the association, with the latter settling prior to trial. The court acknowledged that the association had a duty to protect visitors from known dangers but concluded that the contractor was not liable because it had only agreed to limited services, which did not extend to an obligation to protect against criminal acts. The court emphasized that a duty in negligence arises when a party undertakes a service that imposes a duty to act carefully. However, there was no evidence that the contractor had taken on the association's broader duty to protect residents and guests. The contractor performed only the agreed-upon limited duties, which aligned with precedents where similar security contracts did not impose liability for criminal acts against invitees. Ultimately, the court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the contractor's motion for a directed verdict, as the case should not have gone to the jury due to the lack of evidence of an assumed duty. The court affirmed the contractor's position, leaving unresolved other issues related to jury misconduct and verdict form. Judges Stone and Taylor concurred with the decision.