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
44 Fla. L. Weekly D2318b
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index