THOMAS MAHER, BARBARA MAHER and DEBRA MAHER, Appellants, v. BEST WESTERN INN, ROUTE 50, etc., et al. Appellee., 717 So. 2d 97

Summary

Appellants were guests at appellee's inn when they were attacked by another guest's dog. Appellants filed a negligence action claiming appellee had a duty to protect guests and that appellee knew or should have known of the danger presented by dogs. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on the ground that no evidence existed to demonstrate appellee knew of the vicious propensities of the dog that attacked appellants. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court, finding that an innkeeper owed a duty of reasonable care for the safety of its guest, which included the duty to guard against foreseeable dangers. The court held that it was peculiarly a jury function to determine what precautions were reasonably required in the exercise of a particular duty of care. The court determined that appellee created a foreseeable zone of risk which placed upon it a duty to either lessen the risk or to take sufficient precautions to protect others from the harm the risk ...