The Four Pillars of a Negligence Claim

To succeed in a negligence action in Florida, a plaintiff must prove four essential elements by the "greater weight of the evidence." The failure to establish any one of these pillars will cause the entire claim to collapse.

1. Duty of Care

The defendant must have owed a legal duty to the plaintiff. This is a legal obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risks. Florida courts determine the existence of a duty primarily through the "foreseeable zone of risk" doctrine. A duty arises whenever a person's conduct creates a generalized and foreseeable risk of harming others.

The Florida Supreme Court in McCain v. Florida Power Corp. clarified that duty is a "minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors," a question of law for the judge to decide.

The standard of care varies depending on the circumstances, with professionals like doctors held to a higher standard, and property owners owing specific duties based on a visitor's legal status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser).

2. Breach of Duty

The defendant must have breached their duty by failing to act as a "reasonably prudent person" would under similar circumstances. A breach can be an act (misfeasance) or a failure to act (nonfeasance). This is a question of fact for the jury.

In some cases, a breach can be established through negligence per se, where a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a specific class of people from a specific type of harm.

3. Causation

The defendant's breach must be the legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Florida law requires proof of two distinct components of causation:

Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact): Often determined by the "but-for" test: "but for" the defendant's negligence, the injury would not have occurred.
Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): This element limits liability to harms that were a natural and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach. It prevents liability for harms that are too remote or bizarre. This is a factual question for the jury.

4. Damages

The plaintiff must have suffered actual, demonstrable harm or loss. Negligence without injury is not actionable. These damages can be physical, emotional, or financial, and are detailed further in the "Recoverable Damages" section.

Defenses to Negligence

Defendants in Florida have several powerful defenses that can reduce or completely bar a plaintiff's recovery. The legal landscape for these defenses was dramatically altered by the 2023 tort reforms (HB 837).

Comparative Negligence: The 2023 Paradigm Shift

Effective March 24, 2023, Florida shifted from a "pure" comparative negligence system to a "modified comparative negligence" standard under Fla. Stat. § 768.81.

The 51% Bar Rule: A plaintiff who is found to be more than 50% at fault for their own harm is completely barred from recovering any damages.
If the plaintiff's fault is 50% or less, their damages are simply reduced by their percentage of fault.
Medical Malpractice Exception: This new 51% bar rule does not apply to medical negligence cases, which continue to operate under the old "pure" comparative negligence standard.

Assumption of Risk

This defense applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposes themselves to a known danger. In Florida, its application is narrow:

Express Assumption of Risk: This remains a complete defense and typically involves a signed waiver or release, or voluntary participation in a contact sport.
Implied Assumption of Risk: This is no longer a complete defense. Instead, a plaintiff's conduct in knowingly encountering a risk is considered by the jury as part of the comparative negligence analysis.

Statute of Limitations

A lawsuit must be filed within a specific time period. HB 837 significantly shortened this deadline for general negligence claims.

For negligence actions accruing on or after March 24, 2023, the statute of limitations is now two years (down from four years).
Specialized claims, such as medical malpractice (2 years from discovery) and wrongful death (2 years from death), have their own distinct deadlines.

Other Significant Defenses

Sovereign Immunity: Limits liability for government entities to $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, unless a special "claims bill" is passed by the legislature.
Open and Obvious Danger: In premises liability cases, a property owner may not have a duty to warn of dangers that are readily apparent.
Lack of Knowledge (Premises Liability): For spills or other "transitory foreign substances" in a business, the plaintiff must prove the business had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

Recoverable Damages

A successful plaintiff is entitled to monetary compensation for their losses. These damages are categorized as compensatory (economic and non-economic) and, in rare cases, punitive.

Compensatory Damages

Economic Damages: These are tangible, calculable financial losses, including past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and loss of future earning capacity.
Non-Economic Damages: These compensate for intangible, human losses, such as pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and disfigurement. There are currently no statutory caps on non-economic damages in general negligence or medical malpractice cases in Florida.

Impact of HB 837 on Proving Medical Damages

The 2023 tort reform introduced strict new rules (Fla. Stat. § 768.0427) on the evidence that can be presented to a jury for medical expenses, aimed at preventing awards for "phantom damages."

Evidence of medical bills is now largely limited to the amounts actually paid or owed, not the initial amount billed.
If a patient is uninsured, the value of future medical care may be calculated based on a percentage of Medicare reimbursement rates.
The law also imposes new disclosure requirements for treatment received under a "Letter of Protection" (LOP) and makes the fact of an attorney's referral to an LOP provider admissible to show potential bias.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct. They are awarded only in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, proven by clear and convincing evidence. Florida law imposes strict caps on punitive damages, generally limiting them to the greater of three times the compensatory damages or $500,000.

Special Applications of Negligence

While the four core elements apply broadly, Florida law has specific rules for certain types of negligence cases.

Medical Malpractice

Governed by Chapter 766, these claims require proof that a healthcare provider violated the "prevailing professional standard of care." Claims are subject to mandatory pre-suit investigation requirements and, as noted, are exempt from the new 51% comparative fault bar.

Premises Liability

This involves injuries from unsafe conditions on property. The duty owed by a landowner depends on the visitor's status. A key area is negligent security, where a business may be liable for failing to protect patrons from foreseeable criminal attacks. The 2023 reforms now require juries to apportion fault to the criminal actor and create a presumption against liability for apartment owners who implement specific security measures.

Motor Vehicle Negligence

Florida is a "no-fault" state, meaning drivers must carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance to cover their own initial medical bills. A person can only sue an at-fault driver for pain and suffering if their injury meets a statutory "permanency threshold." Florida also follows the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine, which makes a vehicle owner vicariously liable for the negligence of anyone they permit to drive their car.

Recent Legislative and Judicial Developments

The state of negligence law in Florida is one of significant flux, primarily due to the landmark 2023 tort reforms (HB 837) and a philosophical shift in the Florida Supreme Court.

Key Changes from HB 837 (2023)

Shifted from pure to modified comparative negligence (with a >50% bar).
Reduced the general negligence statute of limitations from 4 years to 2 years.
Created new rules to limit evidence of medical damages.
Strengthened defenses in negligent security cases.
Reformed bad faith insurance standards.

Judicial Philosophy Shift

In recent years, the Florida Supreme Court has become more aligned with a conservative, business-friendly judicial philosophy. This is evidenced by key decisions such as:

Adoption of the Daubert Standard (2019): Raising the bar for the admissibility of expert witness testimony, aligning Florida with the federal standard.
Adoption of the Federal Summary Judgment Standard (2021): Making it easier for defendants to win cases before trial if a plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence on an essential element of their claim.

These legislative and judicial changes have created a more challenging environment for plaintiffs, demanding a meticulous understanding of the new legal reality for anyone involved in a negligence claim in Florida.

Negligence in Florida