PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE | JANUARY 2026
A recent appellate decision clarifies that businesses can’t escape liability simply by claiming a dangerous condition was visible to customers. The ruling strengthens protections for injured visitors and consumers.
Published: January 15, 2026
Case: Lisa McWhorter v. Event Services America, Inc. d/b/a Contemporary Services Company
Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: January 14, 2026
The Applicable Law
Under Florida premises liability law, businesses owe two distinct legal duties to their customers and visitors. First, they must “use reasonable care in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition.” Second, they have “the duty to warn of dangers of which [they] have or should have knowledge and which are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered by the invitee through the exercise of reasonable care.”
These duties apply to business invitees—people who enter commercial property for purposes related to the business, such as customers at stores, restaurants, or entertainment venues.
Key Legal Rule: Even when a hazardous condition is “open and obvious,” property owners can still be held liable if they should have anticipated that someone would be injured despite the visible nature of the danger.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was leaving a Tampa Bay Rays baseball game at Tropicana Field in July 2021 when she tripped and fell in the entrance rotunda. The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed that a security guard employed by a company had left a metal battery case—roughly the size of a shoe box and approximately six inches high, five-and-one-quarter inches wide, and fourteen inches long—in the walkway.
Bird’s eye video recording captured the incident, according to the court. The record reflected that “a security guard carrying a metal battery case and walking through a fairly open walkway rotunda of Tropicana Field. The rotunda was well lit and had a green floor painted to depict a miniature baseball diamond.” The security guard set the battery case down on the floor to pick up what appeared to be trash, then walked away in a different direction, leaving the case behind.
The court noted that “a group of four people were making their way across the rotunda, their path crossing approximately where the security guard had left the battery case. None of those four people tripped over the case, but [the plaintiff], who had been walking in the same direction a few feet behind them, did.” The allegations in the case indicated that “the toe of her right foot appears to have caught on the case, and she fell to the ground in a forward, tumbling motion.”
In her deposition testimony described in the opinion, the plaintiff stated that she never saw what she had tripped over. She admitted the battery case wasn’t concealed and had been left out in the open, but she did not see it. The record reflected that when the security guard returned after her fall, “he said he was sorry for leaving the case on the floor.”
The Court’s Analysis
The “Open and Obvious” Defense Has Limits
The company argued for summary judgment based on the “open and obvious” nature of the battery case. The trial court agreed, finding that because the battery case “was not concealed or hidden,” it was “an open and obvious condition” for which the company had no duty to warn.
However, the appellate court explained a crucial distinction: “These two duties—the duty to warn and the duty to maintain—are distinct, and compliance with one does not always mean compliance with the other.”
The court emphasized that “even when a hazard is open and obvious, a landowner or possessor can still be held liable for failing ‘to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury’ to invitees.”
The Duty to Maintain Safe Conditions Remains
The appellate court affirmed that the company had no duty to warn about the obvious battery case, but reversed the trial court’s finding that leaving the case didn’t create a dangerous condition. As the court explained:
“Here, an Event Services employee inexplicably left a metal battery case about six inches tall and fourteen inches long on the open floor in a stadium rotunda where crowds of baseball fans ordinarily walk through. [The plaintiff] testified that she tripped over that case less than a minute after it was placed on the floor.”
Key Distinction: A condition being “open and obvious” may eliminate the duty to warn, but it doesn’t automatically eliminate the separate duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Foreseeability Is the Key Factor
The court noted that determining liability depends on foreseeability: “Although the dangerousness of the abandoned battery case might have been open and obvious, on these facts, it cannot be said as a matter of law that it wasn’t foreseeable that a stadium patron like [the plaintiff] would nevertheless trip over it, given where it had been left.”
The court cited numerous Florida appellate decisions that have reversed summary judgments on similar grounds, including cases involving:
-
- Missing stair railings (Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005))
- Uncovered drains (Pratus v. Marzucco’s Construction & Coatings, Inc., 310 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021))
- Diesel spills at gas stations (Tallent v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 137 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014))
- Construction debris (Skala v. Lyons Heritage Corp., 127 So. 3d 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013))
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a business avoid liability by claiming a hazard was “obvious”?
Not necessarily. While the “open and obvious” nature of a condition may eliminate a business’s duty to warn customers, it doesn’t automatically eliminate their separate duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. If the business should have anticipated that someone would be injured despite the obvious nature of the hazard, they can still be held liable.
What’s the difference between the duty to warn and the duty to maintain?
The duty to warn requires businesses to alert customers about hidden or non-obvious dangers. The duty to maintain requires businesses to keep their property reasonably safe, which may include removing or addressing even obvious hazards if injury is foreseeable. These are separate legal obligations, and satisfying one doesn’t automatically satisfy the other.
How do courts determine if an injury was “foreseeable”?
Courts look at the specific circumstances, including the location of the hazard, the type of business, typical customer behavior, and whether a reasonable business owner should have anticipated that someone might be injured despite the obvious nature of the condition. Factors like crowded conditions, distractions, or the nature of the business activity all play a role.
Does this mean I can always sue if I trip over something obvious?
No. The law still recognizes that some conditions are so obvious and easily avoidable that businesses shouldn’t be liable. However, this case clarifies that businesses can’t automatically escape responsibility just by claiming a hazard was “open and obvious.” Each case depends on its specific facts and circumstances.
What should I do if I’m injured on someone else’s property?
Document the scene if possible, seek medical attention, report the incident to the property owner, and preserve any evidence like photos or witness information. The specific facts of your case will determine what legal options may be available, so it’s important to consult with an experienced premises liability attorney who can evaluate the circumstances.
Have you been injured in slip and fall?
Premises liability cases involving “open and obvious” conditions require careful legal analysis of the specific facts and circumstances. Property owners and their insurance companies often use the “open and obvious” defense to try to avoid responsibility, but as this case shows, that defense has important limitations.
If you’ve been injured on someone else’s property, don’t let claims that the hazard was “obvious” discourage you from seeking legal advice. The experienced premises liability attorneys at Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC understand how to evaluate these complex cases and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Lisa McWhorter v. Event Services America, Inc. d/b/a Contemporary Services Company, No. 2D2024-2401 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 14, 2026).
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- Lisa McWhorter v. Event Services America, Inc. d/b/a Contemporary Services Company, No. 2D2024-2401 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 14, 2026)
- Baxter v. Morelli, 403 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
- Pratus v. Marzucco’s Construction & Coatings, Inc., 310 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Tallent v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 137 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Miller v. Slabaugh, 909 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc., 164 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1986)
- Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2483608/opinion/Opinion_2024-2401.pdf