Torts — Premises liability — Disabled persons — Evidence — Building codes — Accessibility — Action claiming that curb in parking lot over which plaintiff tripped constituted an impediment to plaintiff’s access to defendant businesses from the handicapped parking spaces, and that defendants’ failure to provide a cut in the curb violated defendants’ duty of care to handicapped patrons — Trial court erred in excluding plaintiff’s expert testimony which opined that the parking lot where the injury occurred did not comply with the Florida Accessibility Code, and granting defendants’ motion for directed verdict — Error stemmed from trial court’s attempt to apply a legal distinction between building codes that serve to foster “access” versus those that serve to advance “safety” — Statutes identified by trial court do not purport to create such a distinction and, even insofar as certain parts of the building code appear to primarily address access requirements for the disabled, it does not follow that those same provisions do not also promote safety for the disabled — By applying an overly circumscribed view of the Florida Accessibility Code, trial court effectively stymied proper consideration of the issue of whether plaintiff was owed a legal duty