CITY OF MIAMI BEACH v. MENENDEZ (2024)

Affirmed. See Breaux v. City of Miami Beach, 899 So. 2d 1059, 1066 (Fla. 2005) (“We hold that based on the undisputed facts, [Miami Beach] controls the beach area and was operating a public swimming area at the 29th Street location at the time of the accident. Thus, the City had a duty of care to warn of dangers that were known or should have been known, and is not shielded from liability as a matter of law based on sovereign immunity.”); Florida Dept. of Nat. Res. v. Garcia, 753 So. 2d 72, 77 (Fla. 2000) (“[W]here an area such as South Beach is a well-known public swimming area ․ the State has no basis for claiming immunity from suit merely because a formal designation as a state park did not occur.”); Butler v. Sarasota Cnty., 501 So. 2d 579, 579 (Fla. 1986) (“[O]nce the [governmental] unit decides to operate the swimming facility, it assumes the common law duty to operate the facility safely, just as a private individual is obligated under like circumstances. ․ [T]he public owner did not create the specific dangerous condition but did create a designated swimming area where the dangerous condition existed.”); Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So. 3d 732, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“A plaintiff's awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate a defendant's potential liability for negligence in allowing the dangerous condition to exist; it may be relevant, however, to a determination of comparative negligence.”).

PER CURIAM.