Appellee Lederer sustained injuries when a parked car rolled down the entrance ramp at Forte Towers, the Miami Beach apartment complex in which Mr. Lederer resided. Lederer filed a lawsuit against Forte Towers, Inc. [Forte], and sought damages predicated upon Forte’s failure to maintain and supervise its premises in a reasonably safe manner.1 The jury awarded Lederer $142,000 but found him 30% negligent. Appellant Forte seeks reversal, contending that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict in its favor. We affirm.

The circumstances from which this litigation arose occurred when a car rolled down the entrance ramp of the apartment building from the parking area at the top and hit Lederer as he walked down the ramp. He sustained severe and permanent injuries. Although Forte Towers employed a doorman to ensure that cars were parked correctly and posted signs indicating “No Parking on Ramp” and “Please note parking spaces are reserved, see doorman for parking,” Forte allowed another tenant’s frequent visitor to park his car at the building entrance at the top of the ramp. As Mr. Lederer walked down the ramp, the visitor’s unattended car rolled down and hit Lederer.

On appeal, Forte challenges the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict. We find that the trial court properly refused to enter a directed verdict “since a case should never be withheld from the jury unless, as a matter of law, no proper view of the evidence could possibly sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. McKenzie, 502 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987). That standard was not met.

The record contains evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Forte was negligent2 in failing to maintain and supervise the area in a safe manner when it permitted drivers to park their cars without supervision. At trial, an expert witness testified that the parking configu*402ration may have been responsible for the accident. The expert witness recognized that elderly tenants prefer walking down the ramp to descending the stairs. He found it probable that cars parked too close to the ramp’s “break point” would roll down the ramp. Furthermore, the jury could have concluded that Forte foresaw such an occurrence from the posting of warning signs and its employment of a doorman to supervise the area. This testimony precluded the court from granting a directed verdict.3

Affirmed.

HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., concur.

(dissenting).

As a general rule the owner of a public building is not liable for injury to an invitee just because that invitee happened to be on the premises when injured by the actions of another invitee; in order for the owner to be liable “[i]t must be shown that the owner negligently failed where the law, custom, or innate danger requires diligence.” Heps v. Burdine’s, Inc., 69 So.2d 340, 341-42 (Fla. 1954).

Conspicuously absent from the otherwise lucid majority opinion is a discussion of a specific duty owed to Mr. Lederer, breached by Forte Towers, which caused Mr. Led-erer’s injuries.1 The owner of the offending vehicle testified that he is a nurses’ aide who takes care of a tenant in the building and that on the day of the accident he (1) drove his car up the ramp, parked in an open parking spot, and locked the car as he had done in the past, (2) left the car with the transmission in the park position and the hand brake engaged, (3) returned to the parking spot two hours later to learn that the car had rolled backwards striking Mr. Lederer.

If an inclined parking area does pose an innate danger it is the product of a design or engineering flaw for which others might be liable. Nevertheless, due diligence would require no more of the building owner than posting signs warning against parking on the ramps — as was done. Inclined ramps are obvious and commonplace features of hotel and apartment building entryways, and the law has never imposed upon the owner of such buildings an impractical burden to park, or to inspect after parking, all vehicles driven by invitees onto the premises.

A directed verdict should have been entered for the defendant.