(Anyone can vote, Floridian or not, and feel free to add opinions in comments below.)
Volusia County, Florida has no luck. In 1994, a woman was struck by lightning and sued the county for not warning her that the sky occasionally shoots electricity. Three years later, an alligator attacked a little boy and his mother sued Volusia County for not having enough warning signs. (She won $35,000.) Finally, in July of 2000, a young girl was bitten by a shark while she was dangling her leg in shark-infested waters, and last month she filed a suit complaining that she was inadequately warned that sharks eat stuff like that. Apparently, the citizens of Volusia County are not going to be happy until every square inch of Mother Nature lets you know she’s trying to kill you.
High-court case casts long shadow
For decades, state law has held that citizens accept a certain risk in simply living, that dangers exist in the natural world for which no one is to blame.
Given that principle, the courts have consistently held, a municipality has no liability for a lightning strike within its borders, nor a shark attack in its waters, nor many other tragedies that might occur in nature.
But all that could change with a case set for oral arguments this morning before the Florida Supreme Court, a case that has captured the attention of the state’s municipal lawyers and legal scholars because it could expose local governments to all sorts of new litigation.
The case before the court involves the 1997 drowning deaths of two people caught in a Miami Beach rip current. Their families want to sue the city, but two lower courts have already ruled against them. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the suits may go to trial.
“Depending on how broadly the Supreme Court writes its opinion,” said Joseph Jackson, a professor at the University of Florida College of Law, “it might have an impact on not just the dangers of rip tides but also sharks, alligators, a whole host of naturally occurring dangers.”
Several South Florida communities have filed legal briefs in support of Miami Beach, concerned about how a ruling in the families’ favor might affect them.
‘Test for liability’
“This case is a very important test for the liability of local governments,” said Edward Guedes, a partner in the law firm that acts as attorney for Key Biscayne and Bal Harbour. “How long until governments say: ‘You know what? We won’t put in any lifeguards. We won’t maintain the beaches.’ ”
Central Florida officials are watching, too.
“It would have significant ramifications,” said Scott Knox, the attorney for Brevard County. “It could extend to sharks, lightning, all sorts of things. You’ve got jellyfish in the ocean, barracuda. How many things can you be expected to warn people about? There’s an element of common sense here.”
The families of Eugenie Poleyeff and Zachary Breaux filed suit against Miami Beach for not providing lifeguards along the stretch of beach where they entered the water in February 1997, even though the city had built changing facilities and licensed a concessions business there. The day of the drownings, lifeguard stations at other sections of the beach displayed rip-current warnings, but nothing alerted Poleyeff to the water’s dangers.
Hearing Poleyeff’s calls, Breaux jumped from his beach chair and sprinted into the surf while his wife and daughter looked for a lifeguard. By the time help arrived from lifeguard stations several blocks away, Poleyeff, 66, and Breaux, 36, had drowned.
The trial court dismissed the suits against the city, and an appellate court upheld that decision, ruling that a municipality cannot be held liable for naturally occurring dangers.
But now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
Should the justices find in favor of the families, Volusia County Attorney Dan Eckert said, the effect on municipalities would depend on how broadly the court rules. “That could be hard to predict,” he said. “The court has accepted review, so obviously it believes the issue merits consideration.”
It is possible that the court could decide in favor of the families but issue its ruling so narrowly that it applies only to the Miami Beach incident, said Guedes, the South Florida attorney. It’s also possible, he said, that a ruling in the families’ favor could be broad enough to open local governments to all sorts of new liability.
“Where do the courts want to draw the line?” he asked. “At what point as a society are we going to say there are risks inherent in life?”
The attorney for the Breaux estate insists the case is about the drownings and nothing more.
“We’re not talking about sharks or alligators or anything of that sort,” Nancy Little Hoffmann said. “The courts have held for years now [municipalities] have a duty of responsible care to warn and protect beachgoers.”
Guedes said the quirks of municipal liability could lead to fewer services for citizens. If a local government takes no responsibility for a beach, provides no lifeguards or warning signs, he said, it can potentially absolve itself of liability in that area. Once it decides to maintain the area, however, it can be held responsible for accidents that happen there.
The same principle holds for warning signs, said Knox, the Brevard County attorney. Leave an area without warnings, he said, and a local government may have no legal exposure. “Once you post signs,” however, “you have liability if you don’t keep them up and maintain them.”
Warning signs, particularly for sharks, would be disastrous to local tourism, said Deborah Boyd of the Southeast Volusia Advertising Authority.
“If you put a sign like that up, I think it puts a fear in people automatically,” Boyd said. “I think it would really deter tourism.”
Reverberations in Volusia
The issue could have particular resonance in Volusia, known as the shark-attack capital of the world. The county last weekend recorded its 17th bite incident of the year, though, as usual, none of the attacks has been considered serious. Most Volusia attacks involve young sharks that become disoriented in the waves, said Joe Wooden, Volusia’s deputy beach chief.
Just last month, a Kentucky family filed suit against the county over a New Smyrna Beach shark bite in 2000. The 13-year-old victim, who suffered injuries to her leg and hand, was treated at a local hospital and released.
The family says the county should have posted warnings.
Jackson, the law professor, said the chances aren’t good for the family to prevail under current law.
Volusia was sued once before over a shark bite, a 1970s case that was dismissed, and also has been sued because of a lightning strike and an alligator attack.
St. Petersburg also was sued unsuccessfully in the 1970s over a shark bite.
“The general rule is that for animals that are native to the environment, there’s no particular duty to warn,” Jackson said.
The Supreme Court decision, for which there is no timetable, could determine whether that remains the rule.
The county soon discovered that attaching warning labels to every alligator and storm cloud was a logistical nightmare for their paste department, so they knew they had to take a radical approach to preventing these lawsuits. They’ve authorized the formation of the Super Squad, a genetically engineered team of shark obedience trainers who wear lightning rods and run through the streets blasting citizens with precautionary alligator poison. The program will cost the taxpayers nearly $72 billion, and the small fee of every fifth newborn being seized by the county and used in the making of the unique protein pulp required by the Super Squad’s enhanced biosystems. As a proactive safety measure, actor Jean Claude Van Damme has already agreed to hunt down and defeat any of the squad members who go renegade.
You’re the policeman. You protect the weak and
ensure that justice is done, all while wearing
really tight pants. Why wear a uniform if you
can’t have style? You don’t take any crap and
are more than happy to use your nightstick on
anyone who gives you lip.
What member of the Village People are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
