CUESTA v. ESTEVANELL (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Eduardo CUESTA, Appellant, v. Jose ESTEVANELL, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D22-1355

Decided: March 13, 2024

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez, Quesada, Lage, Gomez & Machado LLP, and Gustavo D. Lage and Augusto R. Lopez, for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Lissette Gonzalez and Francesca M. Stein, for appellee Royal Palm Estates Association, Inc.

Affirmed. See Competitive Softball Promotions, Inc. v. Ayub, 245 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[G]enerally, if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the defendant controlled the premises where the plaintiff was injured, then the defendant cannot be liable for failing to protect the plaintiff from third-party misconduct.”); Knight v. Merhige, 133 So. 3d 1140, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“[T]here is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent [that person] from causing physical harm to another.” (quoting Carney v. Gambel, 751 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caruso, 884 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“An owner of a premises is only required to protect against criminal acts by third parties if the act is reasonably anticipated and the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific danger.”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network