BSREP III PBG Resort, LLC v. Ginsburg
After a jury awarded $603,578.70 on a trip-and-fall claim in a resort parking lot, the Fourth DCA reversed for a new trial because the trial court took mandatory judicial notice of a Florida Building Code provision (from a 2001 edition that expired in 2005) requested orally on the morning of trial. The court held the FBC is an administrative rule subject only to permissive judicial notice under section 90.202(9), and that the plaintiff failed to give the timely written notice required by section 90.203 and the opportunity to be heard required by section 90.204. The court also held the trial court was required to determine whether the code provision actually applied before noticing it and inserting it into the jury instructions.
Key facts
- Plaintiff brought a trip-and-fall negligence claim against a resort after an accident in its parking lot, and a jury awarded $603,578.70 in damages.
- At trial, the defendant orally requested on the morning of trial that the court take judicial notice of a Florida Building Code provision from a 2001 edition (expired in 2005); the trial court granted the request over plaintiff's immediate objection without allowing an opportunity to be heard, and instructed the jury to accept the noticed code provision as true.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful, citable clarification for any premises liability or construction case where a party invokes the Florida Building Code: the FBC is only permissively noticeable, and section 90.203's written-notice… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.