AAGO legal LEGAL NEWS by KEVIN KNIGHT
THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN WHO WALKED A CROOKED MILE AND GOT AN EVEN RESULT…. When we grew up, we were read the story of the “crooked many who walked a crooked mile. Little did we realize that this story might bear fruit many years later with some literary adjustment. How about a “non crooked man” who didn’t walk a mile but did “walk a crooked sidewalk?” What then? What happens when the man happens to be a tenant and the crooked sidewalk is on the property where he lives? This article will examine the case of Kelley v Sun Communities, 2021 WL 37595 (M.D.Fla. January 5, 2021) which involves an all too common landlord/tenant matter.
THE KELLEY FACTS: Richard Kelley lived in Royal Palm for eight years at the time of his accident. While walking his dog on a sidewalk, he tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk joint. He sued Sun Communities as the owner of Royal Palm. He asserted that Sun was negligent for failing to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition. Sun failed to see the “error of its ways” and denied Kelley’s assertion of negligence. During the course of discovery in the case, several facts became apparent. 1. Royal is a 55-and-over mobile home community in Haines City, Florida.
7. Kelley had previously notified Royal’s maintenance technicians of his concerns over the sidewalk’s condition. Id. at 46–47. Such “notifications” were only in passing conversations and he had never formally complained in writing nor had anyone else to his knowledge. 8. On the accident date, it was a clear afternoon in May 2017.
2. Kelley lived in Royal for eight years before his trip.
9. Kelley’s trip and fall occurred on the return trip to his home.
3. Kelley would walk his dog around the neighborhood each day using the same route:
10. He characterized his trip and fall as a “lapse of concentration.”
(A) down the 20 yards of sidewalk in front of his home;
11. As a result of his trip and fall, he injured his left knee, had surgery and subsequent physical therapy.
(B) across a wooden footbridge to an open field; and
ROYAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Based on the facts above, Royal argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Royal was not negligent, had done nothing wrong and the uneven sidewalk was not a dangerous condition.
(C) Kelley and his dog would then turn around and walk the same route back home. 4. Kelley was quite familiar with Royal’s grounds at Royal Palm; 5. Kelley had never tripped during any of his previous walks 6. Even so, Kelley thought the sidewalk needed
34
By: Kevin Knight
repair, especially one joint between two of the concrete slabs which was uneven and slightly raised.
The Key www.aago.org
THE COURT’S RULING ON ROYAL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION: The Court agreed with Royal and granted Royal’s Motion For Summary Judgment. The Court finds that the uneven sidewalk joint was not a dangerous condition. Therefore, the Community did not
