DISCUSSION:
Clyde Parker, a victim of robbery and physical injury during the robbery incident, wants to bring an action against his landlord, Vista Apartments, Inc. Parker had entered into a lease agreement with Vista, in which case, some critical components of their contract were recorded. Numerous factors warrant liability on the part of Vista Apartments to the loss and injuries sustained by Parker. These factors are limited to negligence and a breach of the applicable tenant-landlord statutes that regulate lease and rental agreements within Florida. In some instances, the tenant-landlord lease agreement between Vista Apartments, Inc. and Parker clears the former of some wrongdoings. These wrongdoings are mainly based on the failure by …show more content…
This statutory violation was committed without dire consideration of the interests of the tenants and the possible impacts on their safety. One of the notable cases that has fundamentally pronounced itself on statutory violations by landlords and their liability is the Savannah Brock v. Watts Reality Company, Inc. and James C. Levie, 582 So.2d 438. In this case, the judges acknowledged the authority of Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210 (Fla.Dist.Ct.1985) as one of the legal tenets that hold landlords responsible for the provision of protection against “criminal acts of third parties” within the jurisdiction of Florida. As such, regardless of whether the requirements were contained in the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant, the state of Florida is governed by this precedent. The violation by Vista was the eventual cause of the injuries and theft suffered by Parker. The inability by the landlord to honor some critical components of the statutory provisions allowed the assailants who attacked Parker to gain access into the building and eventually ended up robbing as well as physically assaulting …show more content…
Roger Thornton and the John Casey Trust No. 3645, 749 So.2d 529 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999), the judges held that the failure of a tenant to inform the landlord of any ensuing dangerous conditions within the premises eases the burden of responsibility from the shoulder of the landlord. The court further held that on the part of the landlord, the defense of ignorance of the applicable codes and standards established by the authority was not sufficient ground for violation. In the Arthur Grant v. Roger Thornton and the John Casey Trust No. 3645, 749 So.2d 529 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999) case, the fact that the landlord provided a key for use indicates that he knew about the locking system. This is despite the fact that the locking system went against the established codes of the particular jurisdiction (Manatee County Building Code). The difference between this case and the Parker claim is that there was a violation of building codes based on ignorance. In the Parker claim, the landlord failed to act despite his knowledge of some of the provisions of the statute. In addition, the Grant case satisfies the grounds for negligence per se based on the violation of an existing statutory code. The Parker claim fails to meet the full requirements for a violation based on the doctrine of negligence per se because the statutory provisions failed to capture the aspect of violent crimes and the necessary liability on the part of either the tenant or the
Clyde Parker, a victim of robbery and physical injury during the robbery incident, wants to bring an action against his landlord, Vista Apartments, Inc. Parker had entered into a lease agreement with Vista, in which case, some critical components of their contract were recorded. Numerous factors warrant liability on the part of Vista Apartments to the loss and injuries sustained by Parker. These factors are limited to negligence and a breach of the applicable tenant-landlord statutes that regulate lease and rental agreements within Florida. In some instances, the tenant-landlord lease agreement between Vista Apartments, Inc. and Parker clears the former of some wrongdoings. These wrongdoings are mainly based on the failure by …show more content…
This statutory violation was committed without dire consideration of the interests of the tenants and the possible impacts on their safety. One of the notable cases that has fundamentally pronounced itself on statutory violations by landlords and their liability is the Savannah Brock v. Watts Reality Company, Inc. and James C. Levie, 582 So.2d 438. In this case, the judges acknowledged the authority of Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210 (Fla.Dist.Ct.1985) as one of the legal tenets that hold landlords responsible for the provision of protection against “criminal acts of third parties” within the jurisdiction of Florida. As such, regardless of whether the requirements were contained in the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant, the state of Florida is governed by this precedent. The violation by Vista was the eventual cause of the injuries and theft suffered by Parker. The inability by the landlord to honor some critical components of the statutory provisions allowed the assailants who attacked Parker to gain access into the building and eventually ended up robbing as well as physically assaulting …show more content…
Roger Thornton and the John Casey Trust No. 3645, 749 So.2d 529 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999), the judges held that the failure of a tenant to inform the landlord of any ensuing dangerous conditions within the premises eases the burden of responsibility from the shoulder of the landlord. The court further held that on the part of the landlord, the defense of ignorance of the applicable codes and standards established by the authority was not sufficient ground for violation. In the Arthur Grant v. Roger Thornton and the John Casey Trust No. 3645, 749 So.2d 529 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1999) case, the fact that the landlord provided a key for use indicates that he knew about the locking system. This is despite the fact that the locking system went against the established codes of the particular jurisdiction (Manatee County Building Code). The difference between this case and the Parker claim is that there was a violation of building codes based on ignorance. In the Parker claim, the landlord failed to act despite his knowledge of some of the provisions of the statute. In addition, the Grant case satisfies the grounds for negligence per se based on the violation of an existing statutory code. The Parker claim fails to meet the full requirements for a violation based on the doctrine of negligence per se because the statutory provisions failed to capture the aspect of violent crimes and the necessary liability on the part of either the tenant or the