In a Florida premises liability appeal, McWhorter v. Event Services America, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that while Defendant had no duty to warn Plaintiff about an open and obvious metal battery case left in Tropicana Field’s rotunda that caused her to trip and fall after a Rays game, the company could nonetheless still be liable for breaching its duty to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition. Because harm was foreseeable despite the hazard’s visibility, the court partially reversed summary judgment and remanded for trial.
Facts
Plaintiff McWhorter tripped and fell while exiting a Tampa Bay Rays game at Tropicana Field. The fall was caused by a metal battery case (approximately 6 inches high, 5.25 inches wide, and 14 inches long, used for a metal detector) left on the floor by a security guard employed by Event Services.
Video evidence showed the guard carrying the case through a well-lit, open rotunda with a green floor painted like a baseball diamond. He set it down to pick up trash, then walked away without retrieving it, leaving it in the walkway for less than a minute.
Four people walked past the case without incident, but McWhorter, walking a few feet behind them, caught her toe on it and fell forward.
McWhorter testified she did not see the case (she was looking to her right), it was not concealed, and the guard apologized afterward for leaving it on the floor.
Trial Court Ruling
Granted summary judgment for Defendant on both Florida premises liability theories, finding the battery case was “open and obvious” and not concealed, so there was no duty to warn McWhorter. In addition, the Trial Court found the placement of the case did not create an unsafe condition. Thus, there was not a breach of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Appellate Court Reverses in Part as to the Duty to Maintain
The 2d DCA affirmed as to the duty to warn, but reversed as to the duty to maintain. The Court noted that Florida premises liability law imposes two distinct duties, and compliance with one does not always mean compliance with the other. The Court emphasized that a landowner “should anticipate that harm could occur despite the invitee’s knowledge of the danger.” Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So. 2d 588, 588–89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
The 2d DCA noted the “contours of legal duties in premises liability cases is highly contextual and will often turn on unique constellations of facts.” Read the full opinion here: McWhorter v. Event Services America (Fla. 2d DCA 2026).
Why This Matters for Florida Premises Liability
This 2026 ruling reinforces that “open and obvious” is not a blanket defense in Florida premises liability cases—especially in high-traffic venues like stadiums. Property managers must proactively remove hazards, not just rely on visibility. It highlights foreseeability’s role and warns against over-relying on obviousness to escape maintenance claims.
Practice Points
For property owners and their insurers, the takeaway is that a hazard’s visibility does not end the analysis. Summary judgment on the duty to warn will not dispose of a Florida premises liability claim if the plaintiff also pleads a failure to maintain, and foreseeability of harm is usually a jury question. For injured invitees, plead both duties separately and build the record on foreseeability: foot traffic, lighting, how long the hazard sat in the walkway, and whether staff created it. Video evidence, as in this case, can be decisive on each of those points.
If you are evaluating a Florida premises liability claim or defense in the Tampa Bay area, contact Cox Law, PLLC to discuss your options.