Open and Obvious Doctrine Explained: Two Separate Duties in Premises Liability Cases

Описание: Under Florida law, property owners owe two separate and independent duties to people invited onto their premises: (1) a duty to make the property reasonably safe and (2) a duty to warn of concealed dangers. In this video, our personal injury attorneys explain why the “open and obvious” doctrine only relates to the duty to warn, and why property owners can still be liable for failing to maintain a safe premises.

We discuss the recent case of Frazier v. Panera, LLC, where the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court that granted summary judgment to the defendant. The appellate court clarified that even if a hazard is considered open and obvious, this does not discharge the separate duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions.

🔹 Topics We Cover:
What is the open and obvious doctrine?
The difference between the duty to warn and the duty to maintain
How courts evaluate these duties in slip and fall cases
Practice tips for plaintiffs and what evidence can help survive summary judgment

Remember: Even when a danger is visible, property owners may still be responsible for creating or allowing hazardous conditions.

If you have questions about a premises liability claim or were injured on someone else’s property, contact Maderal Byrne & Furst for a free consultation.

📞 Call us today: (305) 520-5690
🌐 Learn more: https://maderalbyrne.com/

#PremisesLiability #PersonalInjury #OpenAndObviousDoctrine #NegligenceLaw #SlipAndFall