Miami‑Dade County Court Dismisses Claims Against Private Property Defendant in a Sidewalk Injury Case

CSK Defense
Miami Partner Hugo Alvarez

Case Summary
This personal injury action arose from a Plaintiff’s allegation that he fell from his bicycle on a public sidewalk in February 2023 due to cracks and pavement depressions. The lawsuit named multiple Defendants, including government entities, a utility provider, and several private property–owning companies—one of which was represented by CSK.

Before the Court were the Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint, photographs of the alleged incident location, and oral argument. After reviewing these materials, the Court evaluated whether dismissal was warranted as to the private property–owning Defendants.

Defense Strategy
Mr. Alvarez argued that the Plaintiff’s own allegations and photographs established that the incident occurred on a public sidewalk—an area not owned, controlled, or maintained by the Defendant. He emphasized that the Plaintiff was never an invitee of the private property–owning company and failed to allege that any condition originating from the Defendant’s property contributed to the fall.

Mr. Alvarez further relied on well-established Florida law confirming that adjacent property owners owe no duty to maintain public sidewalks and that no amendment could cure the Plaintiff’s inability to connect the alleged defect to the Defendant.

Outcome
The Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the private property–owning Defendants, finding they bore no legal responsibility for the public sidewalk where the accident occurred. The ruling underscores that merely intending to visit a business does not confer invitee status, and that companies are not liable for conditions they do not own, control, or create.

This decision reinforces key principles of Florida premises liability law: Plaintiffs must establish a direct connection between a hazardous condition and a Defendant’s property, and courts will dismiss claims when repeated amendments fail to cure fundamental legal deficiencies. The lawsuit continues only against the remaining government and utility Defendants.

The issue of prevailing party attorney’s fees in favor of the Defendant remains pending before the Court.