A Florida appeals court has reversed a lower court's ruling in a slip and fall case involving Scott Hale and Sleiman Enterprises, Inc. The decision, made on June 5, 2026, affects how premises liability is determined, particularly regarding the responsibilities of landlords when it comes to maintaining safe conditions for tenants and their customers.
The case arose when Hale, who managed a Domino’s Pizza restaurant, experienced a slip and fall incident due to a leak in the restaurant's kitchen. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the duty of care landlords owe to tenants and their patrons in maintaining safe premises.
Scott Hale was the appellant in this case, having managed a Domino’s Pizza restaurant that operated on property leased from Sleiman Enterprises, Inc. The dispute began when water began leaking from the roof into the kitchen of the restaurant. Hale attempted to manage the situation by placing garbage cans to catch the water. However, after a week of no visible leak, he removed the cans, only to slip and fall shortly thereafter.
According to the lease agreement, only Sleiman or its designated roofing contractor could access the roof to investigate the leak. This meant that Hale and his team at Domino’s were unable to inspect the roof themselves to determine the source of the leak. Hale reported the leak to Sleiman, expecting them to take action.
After Hale’s fall, he sued Sleiman, claiming they had a duty to investigate and address the leak in a timely manner. Sleiman countered by arguing that the leak stemmed from a defective hood vent, which the lease required Domino’s to maintain. They asserted that they owed no duty to Hale, leading to the trial court granting summary judgment in their favor.
Hale appealed the decision, arguing that Sleiman did indeed owe a duty to investigate the leak because they had exclusive control over the roof and the ability to determine the source of the problem. The appeals court agreed with Hale's argument, stating that the lease's terms restricted Domino’s ability to access the roof and investigate the leak.
The court ruled, "We conclude that Sleiman owed Hale a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances presented here." This finding emphasized that the lease provisions did not absolve Sleiman of their responsibility to maintain safe conditions on the property.
The appeals court's decision reversed the lower court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judges Makar and Edwards concurred with the ruling, indicating a unanimous agreement on the matter.
This ruling is important for several reasons. It clarifies that landlords cannot evade their duty to maintain safe premises simply because of lease agreements that limit tenants' access to certain areas. The decision establishes that landlords must take reasonable steps to ensure safety, even when specific maintenance responsibilities are outlined in a lease.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the parties involved. It sets a precedent that could influence future premises liability cases in Florida, particularly those involving similar circumstances where tenants are restricted from accessing certain areas of a property. This could lead to increased accountability for landlords in ensuring the safety of their properties.
Going forward, landlords may need to reassess their responsibilities and maintenance protocols to avoid potential liability in slip and fall cases. This ruling reinforces the idea that a duty of care exists even when lease agreements delineate maintenance responsibilities.
As for the next steps, the case has been remanded for further proceedings, meaning it will return to the lower court for additional hearings. It is unclear if Sleiman Enterprises plans to appeal the decision further or if there are any related cases pending. The court filing did not provide details on potential appeals or related cases.