PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE | PATIENT ATTACKS | FEBRUARY 2026
Florida appeals court reverses summary judgment, finding hospitals may owe duty of care to visitors when patient behavior creates foreseeable zone of risk.
Published: February 4, 2026
Case: Brown v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital
Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: February 4, 2026
An important appeals court decision clarifies when hospitals owe a duty of care to protect visitors from violent patients. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal’s ruling in Brown v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. provides crucial guidance for anyone injured by another patient while visiting a loved one in the hospital.
The Legal Standard for Hospital Duty of Care
Under Florida law, hospitals owe different levels of duty depending on a visitor’s legal status. The court explained that a property owner owes an invitee “the duty ‘to use reasonable care in maintaining property in a reasonably safe condition.'” Ruiz v. Wendy’s Trucking, LLC, 357 So. 3d 292, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
The key legal test focuses on foreseeability: “When considering whether the general facts of a case establish a duty, our focus is on ‘whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader “zone of risk” that poses a general threat of harm to others.'” Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 389 So. 3d 705, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024).
KEY RULE: Hospitals must exercise reasonable care to protect visitors when the hospital’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, even if they don’t know the exact nature of a patient’s mental health condition.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, a mother brought her adult son to the hospital for treatment. The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed she warned staff that her son had been experiencing mood swings, auditory and visual hallucinations, and didn’t like being alone without her.
The record reflected escalating concerning behavior after the mother left. The patient ripped out his IV tube multiple times, told staff he thought police were present, wandered the halls looking for a “professor,” and displayed significant agitation. Hospital staff consulted a psychiatrist who ordered a psychological evaluation, but a medical resident determined the patient posed no threat to himself or others.
The allegations in the case showed that six staff members then escorted the patient to a room with video monitoring, placing him in the same room as the plaintiff’s father, who was recovering from spinal surgery and strapped to his bed.
The court’s opinion described how the plaintiff witnessed the patient’s erratic behavior, including claiming to be “an emperor,” jumping on his bed, and screaming about dragons. According to the facts in the opinion, the plaintiff repeatedly expressed concerns to nurses about her father’s safety and requested that one of the patients be moved or that staff provide supervision. The evidence showed that nurses told her both patients couldn’t be moved and advised her to go home.
The record reflected that as the plaintiff was leaning over her father’s bedside to whisper goodbye after being told to leave, the patient struck her from behind. The court noted that after the attack, the patient was involuntarily committed and placed in an isolated room with security.
Significantly, the court’s opinion revealed this wasn’t an isolated incident. The hospital’s security supervisor testified that “occasionally irate or confused patients become violent,” and Tampa Police documented at least thirty-nine instances of patients attacking others on hospital property in the five years prior to this attack.
The Court’s Analysis
Visitor Status: Trespasser vs. Invitee
The hospital argued for the first time just five days before the summary judgment hearing that the plaintiff was a trespasser because the attack occurred after visiting hours. The court found this created a disputed factual issue.
The court explained that “an invitee may become a trespasser ‘after the expiration of a reasonable time within which to accomplish the purpose for which [s]he is invited to enter, or to remain.'” Byers v. Radiant Grp., L.L.C., 966 So. 2d 506, 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
However, the court noted that the record suggested the plaintiff was saying goodbye to her father when attacked, and “a reasonable jury could conclude that the nurses allowed her to remain to complete her visit.”
KEY DISTINCTION: Whether someone is a trespasser or invitee after visiting hours depends on the specific circumstances and whether they were given reasonable time to complete their visit.
Hospital’s Duty to Control Patient Behavior
The trial court had focused on the hospital’s lack of a specific diagnosis for the patient’s mental health condition. The appeals court found this was error, explaining that “the trial court overemphasized [the hospital’s] lack of specific knowledge about the patient instead of its general knowledge of disorderly patients and the risks they pose.”
The court emphasized that “for a duty to arise, [the hospital] need not have actual knowledge of the precise condition that the patient presented.” Instead, the hospital “must have created the risk of harm.”
The court found material factual disputes remained about whether the hospital’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk, noting:
-
- The patient’s deteriorating and increasingly erratic behavior
- The hospital’s inability or unwillingness to control the situation it created
- Expert testimony about actions the hospital should have taken
- The hospital’s knowledge of numerous prior patient attacks
CRITICAL HOLDING: Hospitals can owe a duty to protect visitors from patient attacks even without a specific psychiatric diagnosis if the hospital’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk based on observable patient behavior.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a hospital be held liable if a patient attacks me during visiting hours?
Yes, if the hospital’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk. The hospital doesn’t need to know the exact nature of a patient’s mental health condition – they just need to have observed concerning behavior that should have prompted additional safety measures. The key is whether reasonable precautions could have prevented the attack.
What if the attacking patient was never formally diagnosed with a psychiatric condition?
The lack of a formal diagnosis doesn’t protect the hospital from liability. As this case shows, courts focus on the patient’s observable behavior and whether the hospital should have recognized the risk based on what they witnessed. Erratic behavior, agitation, hallucinations, and noncompliance can all create a duty to protect others even without a specific diagnosis.
Am I considered a trespasser if I’m attacked after visiting hours?
Not necessarily. Whether you’re an invitee or trespasser depends on the specific circumstances. If hospital staff told you to leave but gave you time to say goodbye, or if the attack happened while you were in the process of leaving, a jury could find you were still an invitee. The timing and circumstances matter more than just whether visiting hours had technically ended.
What kind of precautions should hospitals take with agitated patients?
According to expert testimony in this case, hospitals should consider physical or chemical restraints for patients showing escalating behavioral problems. They should also assign psychiatric nurses and security personnel to assess concerning situations. The specific precautions depend on the patient’s behavior and the risk to others.
How important is the hospital’s history of similar incidents?
Very important. This case involved evidence of at least 39 documented patient attacks over five years, which helped establish that the hospital should have foreseen the risk. A pattern of similar incidents can show that the hospital knew or should have known about the potential for patient violence.
Contact an Experienced Hospital Negligence Attorney
Hospital negligence cases involving patient attacks present complex legal challenges, requiring careful analysis of duty, foreseeability, and the specific circumstances of each incident. These cases often involve multiple expert witnesses and extensive investigation into the hospital’s policies and prior incidents.
If you or a loved one has been injured by another patient while visiting someone in a hospital, the experienced attorneys at Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC can help you understand your rights and build a strong case. We know how to investigate these incidents, gather crucial evidence, and hold hospitals accountable for failing to protect visitors from foreseeable risks.
Case Reference
Brown v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, No. 2D2024-1384 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 4, 2026)
Legal Disclaimer
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
- Brown v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital, No. 2D2024-1384 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 4, 2026)
- Ruiz v. Wendy’s Trucking, LLC, 357 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
- Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 389 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992)
- Byers v. Radiant Grp., L.L.C., 966 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Nova Univ., Inc. v. Wagner, 491 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1986)
- Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
Source: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2484521/opinion/Opinion_2024-1384.pdf
