An ordinary afternoon of car cleaning in a Homestead cul-de-sac ended with four gunshots and, years later, a $4 million civil judgment against a Miami landlord.
A jury found that Dama Holding LLC was negligent for failing to warn tenant Juan Guelmes about a pattern of crime around the cluster of homes where he lived. Guelmes was shot four times on August 29, 2014, while cleaning his car. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal said it was up to jurors to decide whether that violence was something the landlord should have seen coming.
Appeals court keeps $4M judgment
On Dec. 3, 2025, the appellate panel affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant Dama's motion for a directed verdict and left the $4 million verdict in place, finding that disputed evidence about prior crimes made foreseeability a jury question, according to the court opinion. The opinion explains that Dama owned multiple homes in the cul-de-sac and that jurors heard about burglaries, assaults and other incidents on and around those properties. Read the court's decision at Justia.
Evidence jurors heard
At trial, a crime analyst testified that 351 crimes were recorded in the five years before the shooting within the police grid that includes the cul-de-sac. That tally included roughly 100 burglaries, more than 80 thefts and multiple assaults, and highlighted specific break-ins at homes owned by Dama, testimony and reporting show.
The parties also stipulated that Dama did not install cameras or gates, had no security budget or written security procedures, and that its property manager never warned tenants about prior incidents. Jurors also heard from Dama's owner, who testified that he did not believe the company had a duty to warn tenants. Those points helped sway the panel, as reported by the Miami Herald.
How foreseeability works for landlords
Under Florida law, landowners generally do not have a duty to prevent completely unforeseeable third-party crimes. Courts have held, however, that a landlord-tenant relationship can create a duty to protect or to warn when prior, similar crimes put the landlord on notice.
The Third District stressed that whether earlier incidents are enough to make a later attack foreseeable is usually a factual call for jurors when the record is disputed. Legal summaries of the case note that the decision reinforces that courts will look at both the number and similarity of prior incidents, along with a landlord's security practices, in deciding if the risk was foreseeable. See FindLaw.
Practical takeaway for property owners
Attorneys say the outcome is a sharp reminder that landlords who know, or reasonably should know, about recurring crime can face serious civil exposure if they do not warn tenants or take reasonable steps to deter it. As attorney Christyne D. Santisteban writes in the Miami Herald, property owners should document security decisions, consider measures such as lighting and cameras, and notify residents when past incidents make future attacks foreseeable. Ignoring patterns of theft, burglaries or violence can set the stage for large verdicts and higher insurance and turnover costs.
Where the record stands now
The appellate opinion, filed Dec. 3, 2025, notes Dama's post-trial motions alleging juror misconduct and faulty jury instructions but concludes those arguments did not undermine the finding that foreseeability was properly left to the jury. The opinion also reflects that the amended final judgment followed the jury's verdict and that the decision could still be affected by any timely motion for rehearing. Read the full appellate opinion at Justia.
