Scott Hale v. Sleiman Enterprises, Inc.
The Fifth DCA reversed summary judgment for a commercial landlord in a slip-and-fall case, holding that Sleiman owed a duty of reasonable care to the tenant's manager because the lease gave Sleiman exclusive authority to access and investigate the roof—preventing the tenant from discovering or repairing the leak itself. The court rejected the argument that lease provisions requiring the tenant to maintain the hood vent extinguished the landlord's duty.
Key facts
- Scott Hale managed a Domino's Pizza restaurant on premises leased from Sleiman Enterprises; the lease provided that only Sleiman or its designated roofing contractor could access the roof.
- Water began leaking from the roof into the kitchen; Hale reported the leak to Sleiman but Domino's could not inspect the roof because the lease barred it.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- Where a commercial lease grants a landlord exclusive authority to access the premises (here, the roof) to investigate a known hazard, the landlord owes a duty of reasonable care to persons…
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision matters for commercial landlords and their insurers: retaining exclusive control over structural access (roof, HVAC, etc.) in a lease creates a corresponding duty of reasonable care to investigate and… — full analysis with a trial
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
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.