(l-r) Third DCA Chief Judge Kevin Emas, Judge Edwin A. Scales III and Judge Bronwyn C. Miller. who presided over the case Reina I. Echevarria and Jorge Echevarria vs. Lennar Homes.

Florida's Third District Court of Appeal just reminded a trial court that a case should go in front of a jury, if there is a material fact in dispute.

The dispute involved Reina I. Echevarria, who sustained injuries from a fall while exiting a Lennar Homes model house. In reversing the judgment entered in favor of Lennar, the Third DCA said Lennar's uncommon design created a hidden danger leading to Echevarria's fall.

South Miami attorney Philip D. Parrish and Jorge Gutierrez, of the Gutierrez Firm in Coral Gables, represented Echevarria. Parrish said the case shows a lower court judge erring when ruling on summary judgment, despite competing expert affidavits over a main point of contention.

Now, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Mavel Ruiz will have to revisit the case due to what the Third DCA found was a disputed issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment from being granted.

Echevarria was visiting Lennar's Isles of Oasis housing development in Homestead in February 2016. She claimed Lennar created the dangerous condition because the walkway and porch were both "covered by the same colored brick pavers," and the porch "blended in perfectly with the adjacent walkway, making the step invisible to the naked eye as you exited the home."

David M. Gersten, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani in Miami who represented Lennar Homes, did not respond to request for comment.

Soon after Echevarria testified, Lennar moved for summary judgment with an expert stating in a report that the walkway was not an uncommon design and it complied with the residential code. In response, Echevarria provided two expert affidavits disputing that claim.

The Circuit Court had granted summary judgment in favor of Lennar, based on photos of the scene showing it was not "inherently dangerous," and the alleged code violation did not contribute to Echevarria's fall.

The Third DCA's ruling reversing the lower court's summary judgment order and remanding the case back to the Circuit Court did not express an opinion regarding the alleged hidden danger. It stated those are for the "trier of fact to resolve."

But the Third DCA highlighted several cases in which a lower court erred by granting summary judgment when there were disputed issues of material fact that should have precluded entry of summary judgment.

The Third DCA cited Bejarano v. City of Coral Gables. In that case, an expert's affidavit stated the placement of a palm tree violated line-of-sight visibility standards, which created an issue of fact as to whether the city had created a dangerous condition.

The Third DCA also cited a decision by the Fourth DCA,  Gomez Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores East, in which an expert claimed that a manhole was raised and elevated higher than permitted by the Broward County code, which created an issue of material fact as to whether the manhole was a dangerous condition.

Parrish said the case followed a long line of authority on when it was appropriate for a trial court to grant summary judgment.

"The judge should not just look at a picture and determine that the danger was obvious," Parrish said. "That's an issue for the jury."