Eckert Realty Corp. v. Ellen Strazzeri, No. 4D2023-2130
(a) Facts
Name of the Case and Parties: Eckert Realty Corp. v. Ellen Strazzeri, No. 4D2023-2130, Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida. Appellant/Defendant: Eckert Realty Corp.; Appellee/Plaintiff: Ellen Strazzeri.
What Happened Factually: Ellen Strazzeri, an employee at Deer Creek Real Estate in an office complex owned by Eckert Realty Corp., fell on a ramp she had used “hundreds of times” over four years. On the day of the incident, wearing wedge shoes with a 2.5-3 inch lift, she claimed an “uneven slope” caused her leg to twist, breaking her leg and ankle. Expert John Szerdi testified the ramp’s slope (12% at the bottom, 10% at the top) exceeded ADA (5% for walking surfaces, 8.33% for ramps) and Florida Building Code standards. Edward Eckert testified the ramp, installed in 1999 by a certified contractor, passed inspections, had no prior fall incidents despite 1,856,000 traversals, and was part of a parking lot resurfaced every 5-6 years without issues noted.
What Happened Procedurally: Strazzeri sued Eckert for premises liability. At trial, Eckert moved for a directed verdict, arguing lack of evidence on causation and Eckert’s notice of the ramp’s danger; the motion was denied. The jury found Eckert 70% liable. Eckert renewed the motion post-verdict, which was denied, leading to this appeal.
Judgment: On October 2, 2024, the Fourth District reversed the circuit court’s denial of Eckert’s motion for directed verdict and remanded the case.
(b) Issues
What is in Dispute: Whether Eckert Realty Corp. had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition (the uneven ramp) that caused Strazzeri’s injuries, and whether sufficient evidence supported Eckert’s liability under premises liability law.
(c) Holding
The Applied Rule of Law: In premises liability cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition unless negligent maintenance is proven. Absent such evidence, and where the plaintiff’s knowledge of the condition equals or exceeds the defendant’s, the defendant is not liable, and a directed verdict is warranted.
(d) Rationale
Florida law requires a premises owner to have actual or constructive notice of a hazard (Dudowicz v. Pearl on 63 Main, Ltd., 326 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)). Strazzeri provided no evidence Eckert knew or should have known the ramp was dangerous—inspections passed, no prior falls occurred, and Strazzeri herself navigated it hundreds of times.
While building code violations don’t require knowledge to establish a duty (Di Mare & Drews, Inc. v. Kerrigan, 810 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)), the owner must have superior knowledge of the hazard (Kerrigan, Warner, J., dissenting). Strazzeri’s extensive use of the ramp negated this.
No evidence of negligent maintenance (e.g., failure to inspect or repair) existed to bypass the notice requirement (Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001)).
The trial judge noted Strazzeri’s evidence was vague (“she’s walking and she falls”), insufficient to establish causation or Eckert’s liability, making a directed verdict appropriate.
Link to the full opinion: https://4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2441490/opinion/Opinion_2023-2130.pdf
Attached……maybe….