PGA National Resort and Spa v. Ginsburg, No. 4D2025-0428 (Fla. 4th DCA September 9, 2026) involved a premises liability claim from a trip and fall over a pavement defect in PGA’s guest parking lot. PGA appealed a jury verdict and final judgment entered against it, arguing in part that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of an outdated portion of the Florida Building Code (FBC). Judicial notice was requested by Ginsburg’s counsel on the first morning of trial, and the court overruled PGA’s objection that it had received no prior notice of the request, reasoning that the FBC was a “codified statutory thing” subject to mandatory judicial notice. The FBC subsequently became a recurring feature of trial and was included in the jury instructions. On appeal, the Fourth DCA held the trial court erred as a matter of law by treating the Florida Building Code like a statute, when in fact it was an administrative rule subject only to discretionary judicial notice. The DCA also held the court erred in failing to afford PGA the procedural protections contained in sections 90.203 and 90.204, which require advance written notice of a judicial notice request, and finally, that the trial court erred in admitting the FBC into evidence without first determining whether the requested provision was even applicable (and in fact, the provision had expired 20 years earlier). Given that the FBC was a “centerpiece” of Ginsburg’s case, the DCA determined that the error was not harmless, and thus, reversed for a new trial.

The decision highlights the need to look further than the mere assertion of a Florida Building Code violation, and demonstrates that the courts must examine whether a code is applicable and has relevance in a premises liability claim.

Read the full opinion HERE.