Not every bump in the sidewalk becomes a lawsuit but some do. In Jackson v. Florida Department of Transportation, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2224b (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 10, 2025), the appellate court drew an important line for property owners and managers. The court ruled that a minor, open, and obvious irregularity in a sidewalk (which was less than one inch in height) was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law. For landlords, this case clarifies how far the duty to maintain walkways and common areas extends and when normal wear and tear does not create legal exposure for personal injury.
The Case: A Trip on a 3/4-Inch Sidewalk Crack
Nancy Jackson tripped and fell on a public sidewalk maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and its contractor, Ferrovial Infrastructure, Inc. The sidewalk had a small elevation change—about three-quarters of an inch—at an expansion joint. Jackson claimed the uneven surface was a tripping hazard and sued FDOT and the contractor for negligence.
Her expert argued that the condition violated the Florida Building Code because the misalignment exceeded one-half inch. However, he admitted that the Building Code did not actually apply to public sidewalks and could cite no authority for his interpretation. The trial court granted summary judgment for FDOT and Ferrovial, finding the condition was “so open, obvious, and ordinary” that it was not dangerous. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed.
Court’s Ruling: Why a Minor Defect Wasn’t a “Dangerous Condition”
The appellate court reviewed two key legal issues:
1. Was the sidewalk defect a “dangerous condition”?
No. The court held that a ¾-inch misalignment is so common and obvious that it does not constitute a dangerous condition. Landowners are not required to eliminate every minor irregularity that a reasonably careful person would expect to encounter.
The court cited prior cases holding that conditions that are ordinary, slight, and open do not create liability because they are not inherently dangerous. Even though landowners owe invitees a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises, that duty does not extend to trivial defects that pose minimal risk.
2. Did the Florida Building Code apply to the sidewalk?
No. The Code governs buildings and structures, not public right-of-way sidewalks unconnected to any building. The plaintiff’s expert attempted to stretch the Code’s scope, but the court rejected the argument, explaining that applying the Building Code to all public sidewalks would create an unreasonable expansion of liability statewide.
In short, the court held that the sidewalk defect was minor, open, and obvious, and that no duty of care was breached. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed.
Why This Case Matters for Landlords
This decision is significant for property owners, apartment communities, and property managers who maintain walkways and common areas. While landlords have a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe, Florida law does not impose liability for every minor imperfection in concrete, pavement, or curbing.
According to the Jackson case, a small, visible, and common irregularity, such as a crack, gap, or height difference less than one inch, is not considered a “dangerous condition” as a matter of law. The reasoning is that reasonable people expect minor unevenness in outdoor surfaces, especially where weather, roots, or age naturally cause shifts.
5 Essential Practices to Minimize Trip-and-Fall Risk
1. Ordinary wear and tear is not negligence
Florida courts recognize that no property can be kept in flawless condition. A landlord’s legal duty is not to guarantee perfection, but to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition. Minor imperfections, small cracks, or slightly uneven surfaces are part of normal aging and environmental effects, especially in Florida’s climate, where heat, moisture, and tree roots constantly shift concrete and pavement.
Example:
A tenant trips while walking on a front sidewalk on a small edge between two concrete slabs, about ¾ inch high, and suffers a scraped knee. Even though the incident caused injury, this kind of slight irregularity may be considered “open and obvious” and therefore not a dangerous condition. The landlord isn’t necessarily expected to replace entire sidewalks for such minimal defects.
Contrast:
If the sidewalk were raised several inches because of a tree root, forming a significant trip hazard that a reasonable property owner should have noticed and repaired, that condition is more likely to constitute negligence. The distinction lies in degree and foreseeability: minor defects are part of ordinary wear, while significant hazards that a prudent landlord would correct can create liability.
2. Document and monitor walkways
Routine inspection and documentation are the landlord’s best defenses against negligence claims. A simple maintenance log can prove that you acted reasonably and were proactive in keeping the property safe. Courts often look for evidence that the landlord knew or should have known of a hazard. So your inspection records can make all the difference.
Practical tips:
- Conduct quarterly or semiannual property walks, or more frequently in high-traffic areas.
- Take time-stamped photos of sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, and curbs.
- Note any uneven areas, cracks, or stains.
- Keep a maintenance spreadsheet or log noting dates, findings, and repair actions.
Example:
A tenant claims she fell because of a “cracked step” near the laundry room. Your records show that six weeks before the incident, the step was inspected and found intact, and a contractor repaired it shortly afterward. That record may defeat the claim entirely by showing due diligence.
3. Apply the correct safety standards
A common mistake is assuming that every code or regulation applies to every part of the property. In Jackson, the plaintiff’s expert relied on the Florida Building Code, but the court rejected that argument because the Code applies to buildings and structures, not public sidewalks. The same principle applies to many residential and commercial settings.
Landlord takeaway:
- The Florida Building Code generally governs structural features of building (e.g. stairs, handrails, ramps, and entryways) but not independent sidewalks or parking lots.
- The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) may apply only to public accommodations or commercial properties, and even then, the standards depend on the facility’s use.
- For residential landlords, local ordinances or property maintenance codes often provide more relevant guidance.
Example:
If you own a shopping plaza, ADA standards for accessible routes might require curb ramps and certain slope tolerances. But for a private residential duplex, those same standards likely do not apply. Misapplying these standards can lead to unnecessary and expensive repairs, or as in Jackson, to a baseless claim of negligence that distracts from legitimate safety priorities.
4. Distinguish between “obvious” and “hidden” hazards
The law draws a sharp distinction between dangers that are open and obvious versus those that are latent or hidden. Landlords are generally not liable for obvious hazards that any reasonable person could see and avoid, but they may be liable for hidden dangers that tenants or guests cannot detect through ordinary observation.
Examples of obvious hazards:
- A clearly visible crack or small step between sidewalk slabs.
- A curb painted bright yellow to mark an elevation change.
- A wet floor with cones or warning signs.
Examples of hidden hazards:
- A depression concealed under standing water.
- A loose paver or tile that shifts when stepped on.
- A hole obscured by vegetation, landscaping or poor lighting.
Practical guidance:
- Fix or mark hidden hazards immediately.
- Use warning tape, cones, or temporary signage if repairs cannot be done right away.
- Document all communications with tenants about potential hazards.
If a hazard cannot easily be seen or anticipated, courts are more likely to find a duty to inspect, repair, and warn.
5. Consistency matters for large properties
In apartment complexes, multifamily communities, or commercial centers, uniform maintenance practices are crucial. Inconsistent repairs (e.g. fixing some sidewalks but not others, or ignoring certain areas) can expose the landlord to claims of selective neglect or inadequate supervision.
Best practices:
- Adopt a written maintenance policy that sets clear inspection intervals (e.g., every 90 days).
- Establish objective repair thresholds (e.g., repair or grind any misalignment greater than one inch, or any crack wider than ½ inch)
- Train maintenance staff to report hazards the same day they observe them.
- Keep work orders centralized in a single system for quick retrieval.
Example:
A tenant falls on an uneven section of sidewalk in the north area of a complex. The landlord’s policy shows that the entire property is inspected quarterly, that hazards over one inch are repaired within 30 days, and that the section in question was scheduled for repair the following week. Such consistency demonstrates reasonable care and can make the difference between liability and dismissal.
Pro Tip:
When contracting out maintenance, include provisions in vendor agreements requiring prompt reporting of unsafe conditions, along with proof-of-completion photos. This ensures that third-party vendors follow the same diligence expected of the landlord.
Protect Yourself: Sample Lease Clause for Walkway Awareness
Landlords may consider including a clause like this in their lease or property rules:
“Tenant acknowledges that outdoor surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas may contain normal irregularities or minor elevation differences that occur from settling, weather, or tree roots. Tenant agrees to use reasonable care while walking on the premises and to promptly report any unsafe condition to Landlord in writing.”
Such language helps establish awareness and cooperation while reinforcing that the landlord is not an insurer against ordinary, open, and obvious conditions.
Final Verdict for Landlords: Vigilance Over Perfection
The Jackson decision reminds landlords that common, visible, and minor defects are not inherently dangerous. Courts recognize that property owners cannot guarantee perfectly level or flawless surfaces. Still, landlords should maintain a clear inspection routine, repair significant hazards, and document their actions. Doing so strikes the right balance—keeping tenants safe while avoiding unnecessary exposure to trip-and-fall claims.