Proposed Legislation May Compromise the Rights of Injured Floridians
Floridians who are seriously injured by the negligence of others often turn to the state court system for redress. While these plaintiffs are not guaranteed favorable results, they nevertheless rely on the even-handed administration of justice, and the ability to obtain full and fair compensation for all that they have endured. Unfortunately, a series of bills introduced in the Florida Legislature may seriously jeopardize this ability and allow otherwise negligent parties to escape liability.
Republican legislators, in response to hard lobbying by the business community, have introduced several bills this session that are expressly designed to limit the liability of businesses and make it much harder for plaintiffs to recover damages. Specifically, these bills seek to invalidate decisions made by the Supreme Court of Florida regarding slip-and-fall liability, child liability waivers and product liability actions.
Slip-and-Fall Accidents
Under Florida law, people seeking to hold businesses liable for injuries suffered in slip-and-fall accidents involving slippery substances must meet a modest legal threshold. The plaintiff must only prove that the business was negligent in maintaining, inspecting, repairing, warning (of dangers) or operating his or her business.
However, separate bills proposed by Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, and Rep. Gary Aubuchon, R-Cape Coral, would require an injured person to prove a more difficult set of facts. Under both proposed laws, plaintiffs would have to prove that the business owner or operator had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the slippery substance.
This is completely opposite from what the Supreme Court of Florida said in Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. Here, the court determined that both the actual knowledge and constructive knowledge standards made a plaintiff's case too hard to prove and adopted a more lenient standard.
Child Liability Waivers
In Kirton v. Fields, the Supreme Court of Florida declared any liability waivers issued by a business and signed by a parent on behalf of a minor to be unenforceable in tort actions. For example, an amusement park could not enforce a form signed by a parent saying that he or she would not sue the park for negligently maintaining a ride that harmed their child.
The court's reason was simple: A business is in a much better position than a child to take the necessary safety measures and to purchase insurance to cover any injuries. Furthermore, the court also argued that by permitting such liability waivers, it would be removing any incentive for businesses to protect the safety of children.
In response to the concerns of Florida's business community regarding this decision, Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, and Rep. Mike Horner, R-Kissimmee, have each put forth bills that would effectively overturn Kirton. The proposed legislation would expressly grant natural guardians the authority to sign valid and binding liability waivers on behalf of their children. Accordingly, a business could not be held liable for its negligence if an injured child's parent had previously executed a liability waiver, no matter how seriously negligent the business was or how severe the child's injury.
Product Liability Actions
Florida is a comparative fault state. This means that fault is apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant in a personal injury case by either the judge or jury. For example, if a plaintiff with a valid claim is seeking $100,000 in damages and the jury finds that he or she was 30 percent at fault for the accident, the plaintiff will receive $70,000 in damages.
Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, and Rep. Marlene O'Toole, R-Lady Lake, have each submitted bills that call for the application of these same comparative-fault principles to product liability cases involving secondary injuries. Typically, these cases are brought by a plaintiff who alleges that the injuries they suffered in an initial accident (usually caused by the negligence of another) were exacerbated by a dangerous or defective product. Under the proposed legislation, fault for the entire accident would be apportioned among the plaintiff, the defendant who caused the initial accident, and the defendant manufacturer whose product caused additional injury.
This proposed legislation is in direct opposition to the decision reached by the Supreme Court of Florida in D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co. The case involved a young man who suffered severe burn injuries after the car in which he was riding crashed headfirst into a tree (due to negligent driving) and caught fire. Here, the court specifically rejected the application of comparative fault principles in crashworthiness cases, a subcategory of secondary injury cases.
In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that since the defendant auto manufacturer could not truly be held liable for any injuries caused by the defendant driver in the initial accident, it was therefore incorrect to apportion fault for the entire accident between the two.
The court feared that the application of comparative fault principles in these types of cases would enable otherwise negligent manufacturers to unjustly blame other parties for a disproportionate share of the injuries caused by their dangerous or defective products.
Conclusion
While this proposed legislation would greatly enhance the liability protection of businesses, it would do so at the expense of both injured plaintiffs and established state supreme court decisions. It can only be hoped that the Florida Legislature sees the inherent error in putting profits before people.
Whether you have questions about the proposed legislation or have been seriously injured in an accident, you should strongly consider seeking legal counsel. An experienced attorney can explain your rights, answer your questions and outline your legal options.
