No way was she trespassing!

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 6

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 13, 2026

SECOND DCA REVERSES SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR HOSPITAL IN PATIENT-ATTACK CASE; FACT ISSUES ON WHETHER VISITING FAMILY MEMBER WAS TRESPASSER OR INVITEE, AND WHETHER HOSPITAL CREATED A FORESEEABLE ZONE OF RISK BY PLACING AN ESCALATING, ERRATIC PATIENT IN A ROOM AND FAILING TO CONTROL HIM

Brown v. Florida Health Sciences, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D203 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 4, 2026).

Plaintiff was visiting her father in the hospital after his spinal surgery, with her father strapped to the bed. The Hospital moved an adult male patient into the same room. His mother had warned staff he had been angry, subject to mood swings, and experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, and staff documented increasingly bizarre behavior: ripping out IVs, wandering the halls, talking about police, calling himself “an emperor,” screaming about a “dragon,” and running into the hall yelling “fire.” Plaintiff repeatedly told nurses she was afraid for her father’s safety and asked that someone stay and monitor the situation. She testified that Hospital personnel reassured her that she need not worry, and left the three in the room alone. While the plaintiff leaned over her father’s bed trying to tell him to use the call button to call the nurse, the other patient forcefully struck her.

Plaintiff sued Defendant Hospital for negligence based on failure to protect her from a patient attack. The trial court entered final summary judgment for the Hospital, finding (1) Plaintiff was a trespasser (because visiting hours had ended and staff had asked her to leave), and (2) concluding there was no foreseeable zone of risk because the attacker had an “undiagnosed” mental illness.

The Second DCA reversed finding genuine issues of material fact clearly prohibited summary judgment.

On the issue of the plaintiff’s status at the hospital, the court held there were jury issues because an invitee can become a trespasser only after a reasonable time to accomplish the purpose of the visit. Here, the record did not establish how much time elapsed or whether staff had allowed the plaintiff to remain to finish saying goodbye.

On duty and foreseeability, the court held the trial court overemphasized the lack of a formal diagnosis and underweighted the hospital’s general knowledge of disorderly patients, the patient’s escalating behavior, prior attacks on hospital property, and evidence that Defendant Hospital created or controlled the risk by how it managed (or failed to manage) the situation it set in motion. The record contained evidence that unstable patients frequently came to the Hospital, and in the five years before the attack there were 39 instances of patients attacking others on the premises.

The court concluded unresolved material fact issues precluded summary judgment on whether the Hospital owed a duty and whether it should have taken precautions to lessen the risk.

FIFTH DCA AFFIRMS FEE AMOUNT AND DENIAL OF MULTIPLIER, BUT REVERSES FINDING THE COURT SHOULD HAVE AWARDED PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON THE TRIAL ATTORNEY’S FEES

Laird v. Miao, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D229 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 6, 2026)

The trial conducted evidentiary hearings on attorney’s fees.

While the court awarded fees to the plaintiff as the prevailing party, the plaintiff appealed the amount and the denial of a multiplier. The appellate court affirmed those rulings ruled that the trial court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest on the fee award in accordance with Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996).

The case mentions a starting date for the prejudgment interest (the interest stopped running on the date the final judgment was entered), but the case does not explain how the court arrived at the start date.