Often, in a slip-and-fall accident, the case can be dismissed if the property owner successfully argues “The hazard was open and obvious.” Business and homeowners and their insurance companies routinely argue that if a condition could be seen, they should not be held responsible for injuries it causes.  Thankfully, in a recent Florida appellate decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeals makes clear this argument is not the end of the story—and that property owners still have a legal duty to keep their premises reasonably safe for guests and visitors. 

What Happened in the Case?

In Sutley v. The Ocean Trillium Suites, Inc., 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8448 (Fla. 5th DCA, 2025), a hotel guest was injured after tripping over an abrupt change in elevation between a sidewalk and a ramp leading to the hotel's pool area. The injured guest brought a premises-liability lawsuit against the hotel, alleging that the walkway was unsafe and violated applicable building codes.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel, accepting the defense's argument that the condition was “open and obvious” and therefore relieved the property owner of responsibility.  On appeal, however, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed—and reversed the trial court's ruling. 

Why the Appellate Court Reversed

The appellate court emphasized an important principle that many injured people do not realize: an “open and obvious” condition does not automatically eliminate a property owner's duty to maintain safe premises.

While visibility of a condition may be relevant for comparative fault—where each side shares some responsibility—it does not excuse a property owner from complying with building codes or from maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition for people it invites to its property.

In Sutley, the injured hotel guest presented expert testimony showing that the abrupt elevation change violated building code requirements. The court held that a building-code violation constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence, which is enough to create a jury question and defeat summary judgment. 

In plain terms: if a property owner violates safety codes designed to protect the public, they can be held accountable—even if the condition was visible.

Why This Matters to Injured Floridians

This decision reinforces several key points that are critical for people injured on someone else's property:

• Visibility is not a free pass. Property owners cannot rely solely on “you should have seen it” defenses.
• Building codes matter. Safety codes exist to prevent injuries, and violations can be powerful evidence of negligence.
• Expert testimony can be decisive. Engineers and safety experts often play a critical role in uncovering hazards that are not obvious to laypeople.
• Summary judgment is not automatic. Many legitimate injury cases deserve to be heard by a jury.

Too often, injured individuals assume they have no case because an insurance adjuster or defense lawyer tells them the condition was “open and obvious.” Sutley shows why it is so important to have experienced legal counsel evaluate the facts before giving up.

How Our Firm Can Help

At Taylor, Warren, Weidner, Hancock & Barnes, our experienced personal injury attorneys routinely investigate premises-liability claims with an eye toward building-code compliance, expert analysis, and long-term safety obligations. We do not assume a case is unwinnable simply because a hazard could be seen.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to a dangerous condition on someone else's property, we encourage you to seek legal advice before accepting an insurance company's explanation. Recent cases like Sutley demonstrate that the law often provides more protection than people realize.  Let us put our extensive personal injury knowledge and resources to work for your slip-and-fall claim.  We never require any fee, cost, or obligation to simply talk to you about your case, answer your questions, and make sure you understand your rights.  Contact us.