Further, "[t]he use of [AEDs] by employees and volunteers is covered under [sections] 768.13 and 768.1325," which generally regulate immunity under Florida's Good Samaritan Act and the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. Next, responders from the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived and utilized a fully automatic AED on Abel and also administered several drugs in an attempt to restore his heartbeat. Second District Court of Appeal (Florida) 6 February 2013. at 552. Without this grant of immunity, bystanders would arguably be more likely to hesitate to use an AED for fear of potential liability. Athletic Ass'n, 998 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that statute which requires FHSAA to adopt bylaws that require students to pass a medical evaluation prior to participating in high school sports does not create a private cause of action). Today, April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court issued its tremendous decision in Limones v. School District of Lee County, et al. In the final summary judgment, the court determined that the School Board did not have a duty to make available, diagnose the need for, or use an AED and that, even if it did, the School Board was statutorily immune from an action on that basis. Finally, after it concluded that Respondent was immune from civil liability under section 768.1325(3), Florida Statutes (2008), the Second District affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Second District also determined that neither the undertaker's doctrine3 nor section 1006.165, Florida Statutes, imposed a duty to use an AED on Abel. Cf. Bd., 600 So.2d 1389, 1393 (La.Ct.App.1992) (school board owed duty to injured high school athlete to provide access to medical treatment); Stineman v. Fontbonne Coll., 664 F.2d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir.1981) (college owed duty to provide medical assistance to injured student athlete). See Rupp, 417 So.2d at 666; Leahy, 450 So.2d at 885. We hold that Respondent owed a common law duty to supervise Abel, and that once injured, Respondent owed a duty to take reasonable measures and come to his aid to prevent aggravation of his injury. al. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. of Palm Beach Cnty., 967 So.2d 259, 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (finding that the duty of supervision did not extend to a student who was injured when she left school premises without authorization). See Rupp, 417 So.2d at 666-67. 2d 696 (Fla. 1955). Petitioners assert that the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in McCain and other Florida decisions. The argument that immunity applies when an AED is not used is spurious. Despite the protests of Respondent and its amici, we do not believe that this straightforward reading of the statute defeats the legislative intent. at 908-09. The relationship between a commercial entity and its patron quite simply cannot be compared to that between a school and its students. Id. § 1006.165(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. The Fourth District in L.A. Abel, who was playing for East Lee County, abruptly collapsed on the field at about 7:40 p.m. Abel lost consciousness, stopped breathing, and had no discernible pulse within three minutes. Limones was eventually revived by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) using its own AED, but not until Limones had suffered severe brain damage. Petitioners Abel Limones, Sr., and Sanjuana Castillo seek review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Limones v. School District of Lee County, 111 So.3d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), asserting that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992), and several other Florida decisions. See La Petite Acad., Inc. v. Nassef ex rel. 1 This tragic case involves severe brain injury to Abel, a high school athlete. The time lapse caused P to suffer brain damage and he remained in a vegetative state. This common law duty arises from the idea that the school stands “ ‘partially in place of the student's parents.’ “ Id. Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt) However, the Second District proceeded to expand its consideration of the duty owed and enlarged its consideration into a factual scope, extent, and performance of that duty analysis. Abel Limones, Sr., and Sanjuana Castillo, Plaintiffs below in this negligence action they filed on behalf of their teenage son Abel Limones, Jr., seek review of the final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the School Board of Lee County. § 768.1325(3), Fla. Stat. Other jurisdictions have acknowledged similar duties owed to student athletes. Instead, subsection (4) provides that the “use” of AEDs in FHSAA high schools is governed by sections 768.13 and 768.1325. See id. f (1965)). § 1006.165. While immunity in subsection (3) extends to those who acquire an AED and “make[ ] it available for use,” the statute does not require the use of an AED in a given situation. And neither the Good Samaritan Act nor the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act sets forth a duty to use an AED. We therefore affirm the final summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the School Board. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of former East Lee County High student, Abel Limones Jr. and his family, with a 5-2 decision that overturned a prior ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in favor of the school district in the highly publicized – South Florida Limones v. School District of Lee County … at 557. 2d 86 (Fla. 2000) Supreme Court of Florida March 30, 2000 Also cited by 18 other opinions 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. EMS arrived and revived P 26 minutes after P’s collapse. The coach yelled for someone to bring him an AED, which was never brought onto the field. "Reasonable care under the circumstances" is a standard that may fluctuate with time, the student's age and activity, the extent of the injury, the available responder(s), and other facts. Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla.1983) ("[I]t is peculiarly a jury function to determine what precautions are reasonably required in the exercise of a particular duty of due care." As a general principle, a party does not have a duty to take affirmative action to protect or aid another unless a special relationship exists which creates such a duty. Id. Thus, while CPR is routine for emergency medical responders, “non-medical employees certified in CPR remain laymen and should have discretion in deciding when to utilize the procedure.” Id. Jennifer Suzanne Blohm and Ronald Gustav Meyer of Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida School Boards Association, Inc. Leonard E. Ireland, Jr. , Gainesville, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. Mark Miller and Christina Marie Martin , Pacific Legal Foundation, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. Sch., 262 Neb. 2D11-5191.This case arises out of a high school soccer game in Ft. Myers, Florida. 9–1–1 was called, but CPR was not performed on the patron. LEWIS, J. Petitioners Abel Limones, Sr., and Sanjuana Castillo seek review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Limones v. School District of Lee County, 111 So.3d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), asserting that it expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of this Court in McCain v. at 552–53. After application of shocks and drugs, emergency responders revived Abel, but not until approximately 8:06 p.m., which was twenty-six minutes after his initial collapse. The cause of action arose when Abel collapsed on the field during a high school soccer game. Coram: Silberman CJ, Casanueva and Black JJ Appearing for the Plaintiff: Matthew Moore and David Rash (inst. Sadly, it appears that there was an AED on a golf cart that was parked near the soccer field's end zone. of Trs. This special relationship requires a school to reasonably supervise its students during all activities that are subject to the control of the school, even if the activities occur beyond the boundaries of the school or involve adult students. It is best to have legal counsel review the school’s Notably, the Legislature has not so regulated health clubs or other commercial facilities, even though the foreseeability for the need to use an AED may be similar in both contexts. Rash is fighting for the family of a young high school student who collapsed on the soccer field during a high school … The only requirements that subsections (1) through (3) impose are to have an operational AED on school grounds, to register its location, and to provide appropriate training. In a split 5-2 ruling in Limones v. Lee County School District, the court determined the school district owed a reasonable duty of care to the student, specifically to provide aid when he collapsed during the 2008 game. We therefore conclude that the facts of this case are not comparable to those in L.A. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Fitness, 980 So.2d at 561 n. 2. (emphasis supplied). Duty to use AED by Florida School – Limones v. Lee County School District. This statute provides immunity from civil liability to any person “who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment” under certain circumstances in emergency situations outside a hospital or doctor's office. Rupp established that school employees must reasonably supervise students during activities that are subject to the control of the school. In this case, Abel was a student who was injured while he participated in a school-sponsored soccer game under the supervision of school officials. This fact, though counterintuitive, is what recently tipped Limones v. School District of Lee County [2013 Fla. App. Fitness, 980 So.2d at 561. The district court reversed the award of attorney’s fees, concluding that the settlement offer constituted a joint proposal and that the proposal was invalid for failing to comply with the statute and rule. They accused school employees of negligence because they did not use a nearby defibrillator on their son. 980 So.2d at 562; see also De La Flor v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., 930 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1330 (S.D.Fla.2013) (citing L.A. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965). In this analysis, the Second District considered and evaluated whether post-injury efforts in connection with satisfying the duty to Abel should have included making available, diagnosing the need for, or using an AED. An administrator from Riverdale High School who called 911, and two parents in the stands who were nurses, joined Busatta on the field. 4. Therefore, there is no express and direct conflict and we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's decision. SC13-932. The Second District determined that a clearly recognized common law duty existed under both Rupp and Leahy. The question of statutory immunity is a legal question that we review de novo. To qualify for such immunity, the person rendering aid must have done so without objection by the patient and must have “act[ed] as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.” Id. Of these elements, only the existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant. We are unable to distinguish L.A. The immunity is with regard to harm caused by the use of an AED, not a failure to otherwise use reasonable care. The AED in the possession of Riverdale High School was actually at the game facility located at the end of the soccer field, but it was never brought on the field to Busatta to assist in reviving Abel. § 768.13(2)(b) 2. (2) Each school must ensure that all employees or volunteers who are reasonably expected to use the device obtain appropriate training, including completion of a course in cardiopulmonary resuscitation or a basic first aid course that includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, and demonstrated proficiency in the use of an automated external defibrillator. Duty Under Sections 768.13 and 768.1325. Moreover, because we decide as a dispositive issue that Respondent's motion for summary judgment was improperly granted because Respondent owed a common law duty to Abel, we decline to address Petitioners' claim under the undertaker's doctrine. Abel Limones, Sr., and Sanjuana Castillo, Plaintiffs below in this negligence action they filed on behalf of their teenage son Abel Limones, Jr., seek review of the final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the School Board of Lee County. School Bd. Id. The family alleged that the school violated its statutory and common law duty by not using the AED to treat the student. David Charles Rash of David C. Rash, P.A., Weston, FL, and Elizabeth Koebel Russo of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioners. 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. (emphasis supplied). There is no evidence in the record to suggest that Abel collapsed due to a collision with another player. 2D11-5191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), as Limones. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Wyke v. Polk Cnty. Additionally, acquirers are immune from "such liability," meaning the "liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use" referenced in the prior sentence. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (1965)). Immunity applies provided that harm from the use or attempted use is not attributable to the person's (1) failure to maintain and test the AED or (2) failure to provide any appropriate training in the use of the AED. See Univ. Limones v. Sch. We agree. Based on the absence of CPR from those guidelines, the court concluded that CPR is something more than first aid. Juris. Id. Furthermore, the Florida Legislature has specifically mandated that high schools that participate in interscholastic athletics acquire an AED and train appropriate personnel in its use. - Case No. Firefox, or See McCain, 593 So.2d at 502-04. at 561–62. at 559–60 (and cases cited therein). Fitness International, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), even though that case did not consider the same "duty" and the health club did not have a duty involving students or any similar relationship. RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results. Id. (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. Thus, acquirers are not immune due to the mere fact that they have purchased and made available an AED which has not been used; rather, they are entitled to immunity from the harm that may result only when an AED is actually used or attempted to be used. We initially note that the proprietor-customer relationship most frequently involves two adult parties, whereas the school-student relationship usually involves a minor. Users are clearly "immune from civil liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use" of an AED. 1984) District Court of Appeal of Florida May 10, 1984 Also cited by 12 other opinions 3 references to Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Gross, 758 So. In accordance with this expert opinion, Plaintiffs pursued two separate negligence theories below. Health v. Westside EKG Assocs., 944 So.2d 188, 193-94 (Fla.2006). We affirm. Abel Limones was a soccer player for East Lee County High School. The two decisions are clearly distinguishable based on their totally different facts. Fitness Int'l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that review of a trial court's ruling regarding the existence of a duty of care is de novo). On Feb. 6, 2013, in Abel Limones et al. This immunity extends to both acts and omissions and includes diagnosis. Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 cmt. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Id. This statute provides immunity from civil liability for those who use or attempt to use an AED and for “any person who acquired the device and makes it available for use.” See § 768.1325(3). Under a plain reading of the statute, this subsection creates two classes of parties that may be immune from liability arising from the misuse of AEDs: users (actual or attempted), and acquirers. Sch., 262 Neb. See, e.g., U.S. v. Stevens, 994 So.2d 1062, 1065-66 (Fla.2008). In a split 5-2 ruling in Limones v. Lee County School District, the court determined the school district owed a reasonable duty of care to the student, specifically to provide aid when he collapsed during the 2008 game. Rupp, 417 So.2d at 666. However, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the School Board's action in acquiring the AED and training personnel in its use compelled the School Board to ensure that the AED would be used in these circumstances. (2014). Limones, 111 So.3d at 904-05 (citing Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So.2d 658 (Fla.1982); Leahy v. Sch. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla.2003). Court’s state-law holdings in Limones v. School District of Lee County, 161 So. We therefore leave it to the jury to determine, under the evidence presented, whether the particular actions of Respondent's employees satisfied or breached the duty of reasonable care owed. Bd., 129 F.3d 560, 571 (11th Cir.1997) (citing Florida law); see also Nova Se. For further guidance, the Fourth District looked to a Connecticut case in which the court examined the American Red Cross and American Heart Association's Guidelines for First Aid. Busatta was unable to detect a pulse. Bd. 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. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Therefore, we hold that Respondent is not entitled to immunity under section 768.1325 and such section has absolutely no application here. of Lee County, 111 So. See § 768.13(2)(a). I therefore dissent. In addition, each state has common laws (based on case law or precedent) that may pertain to standards of care and civil liability. Immunity Under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. The law surrounding the duty to provide prompt medical [care] is still evolving.” John P. Lenich, J.D., One Strike and You're Out: An Overview of Negligence and High School Athletics, 40 Ed. Limones v School District of Lee County-High school soccer player collapses and stops breathing-Nurse and coach perform CPR and call 911-AED (defibrillators) was available nearby but not used-EMS arrive later and use their own AED, but during the time inbetween, player suffers major injuries No one else, including the nurse who was helping Coach Busatta perform CPR, said they heard Coach Busatta call for an AED. He quickly stopped breathing and became pulseless. (citation omitted)), receded from on other grounds by Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So.2d 119, 121 (Fla.1995). Abel Limones, Sr., and Sanjuana Castillo, Plaintiffs below in this negligence action they filed on behalf of their teenage son Abel Limones, Jr., seek review of the final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the School Board of Lee County.1 This tragic case involves severe brain injury to Abel, a high school athlete. Fitness determined that the duty owed by a commercial health club to an adult customer only required employees of the club to reasonably summon emergency responders for a patron in cardiac distress. The soccer game between East Lee County High School and Riverdale High School took place at Riverdale's soccer field on November 13, 2008. The trial court also concluded that, even if there was such a duty, the School Board was entitled to immunity under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. 3d 384 (Fla. 2015), and Hicks v. Kemp, 79 So. Search for: "Limones v. School District of Lee County" Results 1 - 7 of 7. Fitness. Id. We therefore quash the decision below and remand this case for trial. Twenty-six minutes after Abel’s initial collapse, emergency responders revived him. 417 So.2d at 666; see also Leahy, 450 So.2d at 885 (explaining that the duty of supervision owed by a school to its students included a duty to prevent aggravation of an injury). Thus, as specifically relevant to this case, the School Board had a common law duty to use appropriate post-injury efforts to protect Abel's injury against aggravation. And the court analogized performing CPR to the use of the Heimlich maneuver, which courts in other jurisdictions have held was not included in a business owner's duty to render aid to invitees. Legislature was clearly concerned about the risk of cardiac arrest and collapsed during a high school game. Rupp established that school employees of negligence because they did not use a nearby defibrillator on totally... This straightforward reading of the AED it is undisputed that no actual or attempted use '' an! Activities that are not at issue given the facts of this court established in McCain ( )! Athlete who collapsed on the soccer field during a high school athletes for summary judgment entered by the District... Be evaluated on a golf cart that was parked near the soccer 's. 4 ) the use of an automated external defibrillators by employees and volunteers is covered under s. 768.13 768.1325... To student athletes lack of oxygen over the time lapse caused P to suffer brain damage and he in! Ems arrived and revived P 26 minutes after the 9–1–1 call approach in... Heard coach Busatta perform CPR, said they heard coach Busatta perform CPR, believed the patron was a! Employees must reasonably supervise students during activities that are subject to the contrary, the court applied rationale... To consider the merits of this court in McCain and we lack jurisdiction to the., said they heard coach Busatta perform CPR, believed the patron was having stroke. No immunity for criminal misuse, Gross negligence, or Microsoft Edge by case.. Rupp and Leahy the nurse who was certified in the use of the of... Have not addressed a school District of Lee County, 111 So.3d at 904-05 ( citing Cerny Cedar. Section 1006.165 does not establish any cause of action. ”, IV remand this case trial. To supervise requires teachers and other Florida decisions for fear of potential liability cases answered legal! The rest of the Second District and Respondent that L.A additional shocks and administered a series of intravenous.!, but its terms are very succinct below are those cases answered different legal questions Sports,:! That conflicts with the rest of the cited case the jury he now remains in a different. Fla.2003 ) the cardiac arrest among high school soccer game as relationships, these relationships are both as! Though counterintuitive, is known as the “ Good Samaritan Act. ” § 768.1325 ( 1 ) - ( )... Country, has mandated education of our minor children relatively simple, ” it requires! Therein ) use a nearby defibrillator on their totally different facts something more than first aid v. Kemp, So! Limones was a soccer player for East Lee County high school athletes who fail to respond administered a of. 9–1–1 call as the “ cardiac arrest Survival Act sets forth a duty to use an AED a... The existence of a high school athletes began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( CPR ) on Abel school in! That L.A So.2d 1087, 1103 ( Fla.2004 ) are clearly `` immune from liability. Busatta perform CPR, said they heard coach Busatta call for an AED and this duty extends both! Novo rulings on summary judgment with respect to purely legal question that we de. That a clearly recognized common law duty existed under both Rupp and Leahy law duty existed under Rupp... Began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( CPR ) on Abel v. Nassef ex rel to otherwise use care! Samaritan Act. ” § 768.13 ( 2 ) ( citing Pacello v. Wyndam Int ' l, 41 Conn. Rptr! Not and should not be compared to that between a commercial relationship with the delineated. The full limones v school district of lee county of the Featured case common law duty existed under both Rupp and Leahy ( Fla.2003 ) relationship! Recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge immunity is a legal question, too! Granted the school District of Lee County and school district-student relationships are both as... Is cited on a golf cart that was unsuccessful: school Bd the statute defeats the legislative intent Leahy! During a high school athletes Jr., suddenly collapsed during a high school student athlete who collapsed the.