← Case library
3rd DCADecember 3, 2025Affirmed

Dama Holding LLC v. Juan Guelmes

Case No. 3D24-0684

The Third DCA affirmed a $4 million jury verdict against a residential landlord whose tenant was shot four times by an unknown assailant, holding that the special landlord-tenant relationship creates a non-delegable duty to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable third-party criminal conduct. The court also affirmed that foreseeability may be established by evidence of prior criminal activity in the surrounding neighborhood — not only on the leased premises.

Key facts

  • Guelmes had been leasing a residential home owned by Dama Holding LLC in a Homestead, Florida cul-de-sac for sixteen months when, on August 29, 2014, an unknown assailant shot him four times during a street robbery outside his home.
  • The parties stipulated pre-trial that Dama never installed security cameras or a gate, never hired security personnel, never conducted a security survey, had no policies protecting lessees from violent crime, and had no security budget.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Holdings

  • The special relationship between a landlord and tenant imposes a non-delegable duty on the landlord to protect tenants from reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct by third parties…
  • +3 more holdings with a free trial
Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

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.