Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Premises Liability Law — Tripping on Tree Roots

We’ve all done it—cut across a landscaped area to save a few steps on the way from one public area to another. Most of the time, it’s harmless. But when someone trips and falls, the question arises: Who is responsible? Can the landowner be held liable? Or does the law essentially say, “cross at your own risk”?

As is often the case in the law, it depends.

Duties of Landowners

Under Florida law, landowners owe two basic duties to invitees—such as shoppers, tenants, or guests:

1. To maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition; and
2. To warn of hidden dangers the owner knows or should know about, which are not obvious to the invitee and cannot be discovered through the exercise of reasonable care.

See Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So. 2d 574, 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

However, these duties are not without limits. One major limiting principle is the open and obvious danger doctrine.

The Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Some conditions—such as a clearly visible curb or a decorative rock—are considered so open and obvious that they are not deemed dangerous as a matter of law. Florida courts have repeatedly held that if a danger is open and obvious and not inherently hazardous, a property owner may not be liable even if someone is injured.

See Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So. 3d 204, 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

But the doctrine has an important exception:

“[T]he owner or possessor [may still be liable] if they should anticipate the harm despite the fact that the dangerous condition is open and obvious.”
— Aaron, 908 So. 2d at 576–77.

This exception recognizes that even obvious hazards can present an unreasonable risk under certain circumstances—such as when invitees are likely to encounter the danger out of necessity or because the risk is hard to avoid.

The Wolf Case: An Example with Limits

A leading case on the issue is Wolf v. Sam’s East, Inc., 132 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). There, the plaintiff tripped over a tree root while walking through a landscaped area with dirt, trees, and mulch. The area had concrete walkways nearby, including one just a few feet from where the plaintiff had parked. Despite knowing about the walkway, he chose to cut across the landscaping instead.

The court sided with the property owner, concluding that tree roots in landscaped areas are not inherently dangerous and were obvious enough that no warning or corrective action was required. The court emphasized that the plaintiff could have avoided the hazard entirely by using the designated walkway.

Importantly, the court cited prior precedent:

“Landscaping features are generally found not to constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. A landowner has no liability for falls which occur when invitees walk on surfaces not designed for walking, such as planting beds.”
— Dampier, 82 So. 3d at 204.

However, the court’s reasoning leaves the door open: its holding hinged heavily on the availability—and proximity—of a safe alternative route.

Our Case: A Different Set of Facts

Our firm is currently handling a case with facts that distinguish it from Wolf.

Our client parked in a lot bordered by 125 yards of continuous landscaping—with no designated crossing paths anywhere nearby. She took the most direct and well-worn route through the landscaping, which had clearly been used by pedestrians for years. While crossing at night, she tripped on a tree root and suffered serious injuries.

Unlike in Wolf, our client had no nearby alternative for crossing. The absence of pedestrian walkways created a foreseeable risk that people would traverse the landscaping, especially at night. Under these circumstances, we will argue that the property owner should have anticipated the harm—even though the root may have been “obvious” in the daylight.

Conclusion

Florida premises liability law does not impose a blanket rule that excuses landowners whenever an injury occurs on landscaping. While some hazards may be considered open and obvious, each case turns on its facts—including whether the injured party had a reasonable alternative, the foreseeability of pedestrian traffic, and whether the owner took reasonable steps to address the danger.

If you’ve been injured in a fall caused by a property defect or hazard, contact our office to discuss your rights. A legal evaluation of the surrounding circumstances can make all the difference.

************************************************ 

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.