Jurisdiction: Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 3D24-0684
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 15-19010-CA-01
Date: December 3, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Judge Charles Kenneth Johnson
In Dama Holding LLC v. Guelmes, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a $4 million verdict awarded to a tenant who was shot multiple times during a robbery attempt outside the leased home he rented from the defendant landlord, Dama Holding LLC (“Dama”).
The case centers on two legal issues:
- Whether a landlord owed a duty to warn a tenant of foreseeable criminal activity, and whether the violent attack on Guelmes was legally foreseeable; and
- Whether juror misconduct required a new trial, after multiple jurors exchanged notes regarding expert testimony mid-trial.
The appellate court held:
- The landlord tenant relationship created a special relationship imposing a duty to warn tenants of reasonably foreseeable criminal dangers;
- Extensive prior criminal activity in the grid, and crimes on Dama’s own properties, created a jury question on foreseeability;
- Juror misconduct occurred, but the presumption of prejudice was rebutted through the court’s inquiry and curative instructions.
This case offers important instructional value for property owners and victims who seek to establish landlord liability for preventable or foreseeable criminal acts. Similar themes appear in Boltz Legal’s consumer-protection content, including:
- Florida Homeowners Insurance Crisis Analysis
- Navigating the Storm: Protecting Homeowners from Insurance Malpractices in Florida
- Weaponizing Xactimate
Each explores systemic failures and the consequences when individuals homeowners, tenants, or policyholders are left unprotected by those who owe them a duty.
Background
Dama owned multiple adjacent rental properties in a Homestead cul-de-sac. Plaintiff Juan Guelmes had been renting one such home for over a year when an unknown assailant violently attacked him while he was cleaning his car. After attempting to steal Guelmes’s chain, the assailant shot him four times.
Guelmes sued Dama for failing to:
- Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition;
- Warn tenants of foreseeable criminal acts in an area with a documented history of violent and property crimes;
- Take any meaningful steps to deter criminal conduct.
Dama denied liability, asserting:
- No duty existed to protect or warn tenants about criminal acts of third parties;
- The attack was unforeseeable;
- Dama lacked actual or constructive notice of prior criminal activity;
- Guelmes bore comparative fault.
A jury found Dama negligent and awarded $4 million. Dama moved for directed verdict and later for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied.
Legal Analysis
I. Duty to Protect Against Foreseeable Crime
Landowners generally owe no duty to protect against unforeseeable criminal acts. But there are crucial exceptions.
Florida courts recognize:
- A landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from criminal acts if prior, similar acts make the harm reasonably foreseeable.
- A “special relationship” exists between landlord and tenant, which includes a duty to warn tenants of foreseeable criminal danger.
Supporting authorities include:
- Medina v. 187th Street Apts.
- Czerwinski v. Sunrise Point Condo.
- T.W. v. Regal Trace
Applying these standards, the Third District affirmed that Dama owed a duty to warn Guelmes of foreseeable criminal activity.
II. Foreseeability: Was the Crime Predictable?
The foreseeability question contained significant factual disputes, making it properly a jury question.
Evidence showed:
- 351 crimes occurred in the relevant geographic grid in the five years before the shooting.
- Numerous crimes including burglaries, assaults, armed burglaries, and aggravated assaults occurred specifically on Dama-owned properties.
- Dama’s property manager and principal owner:
- Conducted no crime analysis;
- Installed no security measures;
- Failed to warn tenants of past crimes;
- Demonstrated actual awareness of multiple incidents.
- Guelmes’s own rental home had multiple documented burglaries and an armed burglary prior to the shooting.
Expert testimony established that:
- The cul-de-sac was a “crime magnet”;
- Crime was persistent, escalating, and foreseeable;
- Dama should have warned its tenants.
Even ignoring Dama’s knowledge of crimes on its own parcels, the surrounding neighborhood contained numerous prior similar crimes that made the shooting reasonably foreseeable.
Thus, the appellate court affirmed the denial of a directed verdict.
III. Juror Misconduct
During trial, jurors exchanged handwritten notes about:
- Testimony from Dama’s damages expert
- The doctor’s opinions about scarring and disfigurement
- Salary information from expert testimony
This was improper, and under Florida law, prejudice is presumed once misconduct occurs.
However, the presumption was rebutted because:
- The trial judge individually questioned every juror involved;
- The notes did not discuss ultimate issues or guilt;
- No juror indicated prejudice or premature deliberation;
- The judge issued strong curative instructions;
- Defense counsel declined the court’s offer to strike the offending alternate juror.
Following the standards in Johnson v. State and Amazon v. State, the Third District held that the notes did not create a reasonable possibility of affecting the verdict. Thus, a new trial was not warranted.
Conclusion
The Third District affirmed the $4 million judgment for the plaintiff, finding:
- The landlord tenant relationship created a duty to warn of foreseeable criminal activity;
- Extensive evidence of neighborhood and on property crimes created a jury issue on foreseeability;
- Juror misconduct occurred but did not prejudice the outcome.
This case reaffirms Florida law’s longstanding principle: foreseeability is often a jury question, particularly where property owners ignore persistent, documented patterns of crime.
The broader themes align with Boltz Legal’s mission to expose systemic negligence and advocate for consumer protection whether in insurance practices, property safety, or large scale legal disputes.
Today’s Insight
“The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”