NO RECOVERY NO FEES
Wed 17th Dec | 2025

The Week In Torts – Cases from November 14, 2025

Appellate Litigation Personal Injury The Week in Torts BY

Down, but not out

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 45

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 14, 2025

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AMENDS RULES INVOLING SETTING CASES FOR TRIAL AND ENTERING DEFAULTS

In re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.440 and 1.500, 50 Fla. L. Weekly S301 (Fla. Nov. 13, 2025):

The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.440 to harmonize the language of former subdivision (c) with Rule 1.500, incorporating a defaulted party’s right to receive notice of a trial (incorporated into subdivision (d).

Additionally, the changes to Rule 1.500 clarify that when a party seeks a default from the clerk, the party must first move for default and serve it on the party to be defaulted, and then the clerk can enter it.

The court also amended subdivision (b) to clarify that even when the court is entering the default, the party seeking it must “move” for it.

Finally, until a default is entered, the “soon to be defaulted party” must still be served with all the documents filed in the action.

Week In Torts Button

TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE HAZARD OVER WHICH THE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” — SIMPLY BECAUSE A HAZARD IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOES NOT DISCHARGE A DEFENDANT’S DUTY TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY IN A REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION — EVIDENCE THAT A HAZARD VIOLATES A BUILDING CODE CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BASED ON A BREACH OF A DUTY TO MAINTAIN

Sutley v. The Ocean Trillium Suites, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2422 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 7, 2025):

While the trial court found that a condition on the premises was open and obvious, that finding alone did not discharge the defendant’s duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, rendering the entry of summary judgment, erroneous.

The record contained expert testimony that the defendant’s walkway violated the building code. This testimony constituted prima facie evidence of negligence based on a breach of the defendant’s duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, providing requisite evidence to defeat summary judgment.