holding that because of the nature of a school’s relationship to their juvenile students, a jury could find that the school breached its duty of care by not providing student athletes with defibrillators
How later courts described this case
- holding that because of the nature of a school’s relationship to their juvenile students, a jury could find that the school breached its duty of care by not providing student athletes with defibrillators
- noting that the Court has “clearly stated that” breach, proximate causation, and damages “are to be resolved by the fact-finder”
- school owes home and visiting student athletes duty of supervision, duty to act -with reasonable care, “duty to take appropriate post-injuiy efforts to avoid or mitigate further aggravation of [ ] injury”
- “Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
Because I conclude that the decision of the district court of appeal, Limones v. School District of Lee County, 111 So.3d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), does not expressly and directly conflict with McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992), I would dismiss review of this case for lack of jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution. I therefore dissent.
In McCain , the plaintiff was injured when the blade of a trencher he was operating made contact with an underground electrical cable owned by Florida Power Corporation. The Court held that because cables transmitting electricity had “unquestioned power to kill or maim,” the defendant had created a “foreseeable zone of risk” and therefore, as a matter of law, had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury to others. McCain, 593 So.2d at 503-04 . In Limones , the district court of appeal held as a matter of law that a school district “had no common law duty to make available, diagnose the need for, or use” an automated external defibrillator on a student athlete who “collapsed on the field ... stopped breathing and had no discernible pulse” during a high school soccer match. Limones, 111 So.3d at 903, 906 . The two decisions are clearly distinguishable based on their totally different facts. Therefore, there is no express and direct conflict and we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision.
POLSTON, J., concurs.