Tag Archives: building code

PROPERLY TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FLORIDA’S BUILDING CODE

Posted on by

Many construction defects cases involve Florida’s Building Code.  A recent non-construction case, BSREP II PBG Resort, LLC v Ginsburg, 2026 WL 265226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), discussed a court taking judicial notice of a provision in the Florida Building Code. This case was a premise liability case where the plaintiff tripped in an asphalt parking lot. The plaintiff, without complying with proper procedural notice protocol, asked the court to take judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code, i.e., admitting this section as relevant evidence in the case. The trial court granted the request for judicial notice and the plaintiff used this as the basis of her cross-examination, the jury instructions, and closing argument that the violation of this section of Florida’s Building Code was evidence of negligence. This was in error.

First, Florida’s Building Code is NOT a statute but an administrative rule. Ginsburg, supra.  As an administrative rule, a court “may” but is not obligated to take judicial notice of the rule – it is a permissive judicial notice request per Florida Statute s. 90.203 and 90.202(9). This is important because the trial court viewed Florida’s Building Code as a statute it mandatorily had to take judicial notice of per Florida Statute s. 90.201, which was in error. Because it was permissive, the plaintiff needed to comply with statutory procedural notice protocols, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Second, the trial court made no determination that the section of Florida’s Building Code at-issue even applied to the case. Had the proper notice been given by the plaintiff to the defendant, the issue could have been briefed and the trial court could have made the determination whether the rule applied to the case.  Had the briefing been done, the trial court would have learned the rule at-issue was long removed from the Florida Building Code’s later versions; in other words, the rule long expired. And even if the section was still applicable, the section dealt with means of egress and the injury occurred in a parking lot; hence, it was questionable whether it was even relevant to the case. “[T]he trial court was required to determine whether the requested provision applied to the case; otherwise, no justification existed for taking judicial notice of this provision and inserting it in the jury instructions.” Ginsburg, supra.

The bottom line is the trial court put the cart before the horse and took judicial notice of a section of Florida’s Building Code in seemingly a sandbagging fashion by the plaintiff.  Once the trial court took judicial notice of this evidence, it became hard for the defendant to overcome the presumption that the violation of the section of Florida’s Building Code constituted negligence.

If you are relying on Florida’s Building Code, you should want this introduced and rebutted through appropriate expert testimony. While the applicability of Florida’s Building Code to the case is a question of law for the court, you still want the expert testimony to demonstrate the applicability or rebut any presumptions that may come with its applicability as evidence.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

APPLICABILITY OF FLORIDA’S BUILDING CODE IS A QUESTION OF LAW

Posted on by

The application of Florida’s Building Code is a question of law for the court.  It’s NOT a question for a witness to determine.

In a recent personal injury dispute dealing with the tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, a key issue included the application of Florida’s Building Code on a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants where a major portion of the ruling was based on the inapplicability of Florida’s Building Code to the public sidewalk. Even though the plaintiff had an expert witness that opined that the Florida Building Code did apply, the trial court rejected this opinion in determining the Code did not apply:

Whether the Florida Building Code is applicable to this case ultimately is a question of law belonging to the court, not the witness. See Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Ag., Inc., 645 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.”); see also Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect & Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law. It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code . . . .” (citations omitted)). As such, it was the responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the building code applies to the sidewalk in this case and whether the code provided evidence of negligence. See Martin v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., No. 6:15-cv-1364-ORL-41KRS, 2017 WL 2928154, at *4 (M.D. Fla. April 19, 2017) (“Accordingly, [the expert] may not testify as to the applicability or inapplicability of any provision of the Florida Building Code. This Court will determine what provisions, if any, are applicable to the facts of this case.”).

Here, the trial court was correct to reject the expert’s opinion and conclude the building code was not applicable to this case. The express scope of the code prohibits its application to the right-of-way sidewalk where [the plaintiff] fell. Further, the expert was unable to provide any support for his novel interpretation applying the building code to a public sidewalk unconnected to any building or structure. His view would have the effect of extending the Florida Building Code to cover the thousands of miles of public right-of-way sidewalk across the state of Florida. Such a strained approach paves a path far too wide and stretches the building code far too long.

Jackson v. Florida Department of Transportation, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2224b (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE IS A QUESTION OF LAW

Posted on by


In construction defect disputes, oftentimes the owner (or developer or association, as may be applicable) will assert a claim against the general contractor, and perhaps, subcontractors for a violation of the building code.  Such a claim is authorized pursuant to Florida Statute s. 553.84 that provides:

 

Notwithstanding any other remedies available, any person or party, in an individual capacity or on behalf of a class of persons or parties, damaged as a result of a violation of this part or the Florida Building Code, has a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the person or party who committed the violation; however, if the person or party obtains the required building permits and any local government or public agency with authority to enforce the Florida Building Code approves the plans, if the construction project passes all required inspections under the code, and if there is no personal injury or damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the permits, plans, and inspections, this section does not apply unless the person or party knew or should have known that the violation existed.

 

A violation of the building code serves as evidence of negligence by the offending party.  See Russ v. Wollheim, 915 So.2d 1285, n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“A building code is designed to protect the general public rather than a particular class of individuals, and therefore, violation of a building code is merely evidence of negligence.” )

 

But who determines whether an asserted defect, error, or omission constitutes a violation of the building code?  Is this a question of law for the judge?  Or, is this a question of fact for the jury (in a jury trial)?  Remarkably, cases have held that a violation of a building code, a complicated and rather specialized issue, is a question of law for the judge to determine.

 

In Edward J. Seibert, A.I.A. Architect and Planner, P.A. v. Bayport Beach and Tennis Club Ass’n, Inc., 573 So.2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), a condominium association filed suit against the architect among others.  The jury found that the architect was liable for violating the building code in the fire exit design even though the design had been approved by the building department upon the issuance of the building permit. To support this violation, the association had an expert testify regarding his interpretation regarding the building code. The architect testified that his design complied with the building code and had two supporting expert opinions.  The verdict form asked the jury if the fire exist design complied with the applicable code.  The Second District held that the interpretation of the code was a question of law that should not have been submitted to the jury.

 

They [the parties] instead presented conflicting opinions as to how the code should be interpreted. The jury was allowed to determine the meaning of the code and then whether Seibert [architect] violated the code by designing only one fire exit. This was error. An expert should not be allowed to testify concerning questions of law, and the interpretation of the building code presented a question of law.

 

It was the duty of the trial court to interpret the meaning of the code and instruct the jury concerning that meaning. Any conflicts in interpretation were for the court to resolve and their resolution was not a jury issue.

Edward J. Seibert, 573 So.2d at 891-9 (internal citations omitted).

 

Further, in Lindsey v. Bill Arflin Bonding Agency, Inc., 645 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), a personal injury plaintiff sued an owner for slipping on a wet spot on stairs.  The plaintiff claimed that the stairs lacked handrails in violation of the building code.  The owners relied on testimony from a building department official opining that handrails were not required based on his interpretation of the code / ordinance at-issue.   The First District, however, found:

 

Expert testimony as to the meaning of an ordinance is not appropriate when the disputed language consists of “ordinary words susceptible to being given plain effect consistent with their ordinary meaning.” The legal effect of a building code presents a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. While expert testimony may be relevant and helpful to the court where a statute or ordinance contains words of art or scientific and technical terms, even then such testimony cannot dictate the court’s construction of the enactment.

Lindsey, 645 So.2d at 568 (internal citations omitted).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.