Yes, the fishermen can sue for their lost money. First, a Florida law against pollution is written to let 'any person' sue for 'all damages,' and that includes the fishermen's lost income. Second, it's just common sense. Mosaic was doing something risky and should have known that a spill would hurt people who fish for a living. Because the fishermen's jobs are uniquely tied to the bay, Mosaic had a duty to protect them from this kind of harm.

The fishermen can sue because the special anti-pollution law allows it, but not under general common sense rules. If we say fishermen can sue, what about restaurants that couldn't buy fish, or seafood truck drivers with no fish to transport? Allowing this kind of lawsuit for anyone who loses money would create an endless line of people suing. This would make companies responsible for every single ripple effect of an accident, which isn't fair or practical.

Yes. I say the fishermen can get money for their lost income because of the pollution. A Florida law says anyone can sue for damages from pollution, and the law should be used to help people hurt by it. The rule that usually stops people from getting money when they don't have a direct contract or property damage doesn't apply here. The fishermen's special job and licenses make it fair for them to expect the polluter to be careful not to harm their business. To win, they need to show the polluter had a duty to be careful, didn't do that, and directly caused actual losses.

I agree the law lets fishermen sue for lost income, but I don't think the fishermen had a special right to expect the polluter to pay for hurting their business in general. This could make polluters have to pay for all kinds of unexpected business losses. But I do agree there are different ways someone can have a duty to be careful, like from laws, court decisions, or specific situations.

Under Florida law, a negligence claim has four elements: "a duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages."

"[T] he economic loss rule in Florida is applicable in only two situations:(1) where the parties are in contractual privity and one party seeks to recover damages in tort for matters arising out of the contract, or (2) where the defendant is a manufacturer or distributor of a defective product which damages itself but does not cause personal injury or damage to any other …

—the Florida Supreme Court held that the owner of a fertilizer storage facility was liable to commercial fishermen after a dramatic release of pollutants into the Bay where they were licensed to fish.

To sustain its negligence claim, PSI must demonstrate:(1) a duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring GFS to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks;(2) a failure on GFS's part to conform to the standard required a breach of the duty;(3) a reasonably close causal connection between the conduct and the …

"Florida law recognizes four sources of duties of care: statutes and regulations, judicial interpretations of legislation, judicial decisions, and duties arising from the facts of a particular case."

This is what is commonly known as "legal cause," or "proximate cause," and which includes the notion of cause in fact. 4. Actual loss or damage....

—noting that where "parties are in contractual privity and one party seeks to recover damages in tort for matters arising out of the contract," the economic loss rule "would not prevent the bringing of an action and recovery for intentional torts, such as, fraud, conversion, intentional interference, civil theft, abuse of process, and other torts requiring proof of intent

Answering a certified question, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that under § 376.313 (3) the fishermen could "recover damages for their loss of income despite the fact that [they] do not own any real or personal property damaged by the pollution."

Under Florida law, liability necessarily encompasses four elements:(1) a duty of care;(2) a breach of that duty;(3) causation; and (4) actual loss or damages.

Stat. § 376.313 (3), a plaintiff must allege:(1) a prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition occurred; and (2) damages.

Yes. Commercial fishermen can recover for purely economic losses under both a statutory and a common law theory. The Florida statute (section 376.313) is to be liberally construed and allows 'any person' to sue for 'all damages' resulting from pollution, which includes the fishermen's lost income. Furthermore, under common law negligence, Mosaic owed the fishermen a duty of care because it was foreseeable that a pollutant discharge would destroy marine life and thereby harm the fishermen's livelihood. The fishermen have a special interest in the public waters, distinct from the general public, which places them within the foreseeable zone of risk created by Mosaic's hazardous activities, and the economic loss rule does not bar their claim.

Yes as to the statutory claim, but No as to the common law claim. The plain language of section 376.313 provides for recovery of 'all damages' and therefore permits the fishermen's statutory cause of action. However, no common law duty exists because commercial fishermen do not have a 'special interest' that sufficiently distinguishes them from countless others who rely on healthy oceans for their income, such as hotel or restaurant owners. Recognizing such a common law duty would expose defendants to limitless liability to an indeterminate class of potential plaintiffs for purely economic losses, which is an unworkable and unsound expansion of tort law.

Yes. I hold that commercial fishermen can recover for economic losses caused by the negligent release of pollutants, even if they do not own property damaged by the pollution. This is because Florida Statute § 376.313(3) allows any person to bring a cause of action for all damages resulting from pollution, and the statute should be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. The economic loss rule does not bar these claims, as the rule is inapplicable when the parties are not in contractual privity and the defendant is not a manufacturer or distributor of a defective product. The fishermen's unique relationship with the fish and their commercial fishing licenses establish a special interest, creating a duty of care owed by Mosaic. The elements of a negligence claim in Florida include a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and actual loss or damages.

I concur with the majority's affirmative answer to the statutory question but dissent on the common law issue. I would not extend the majority's decision to other class members beyond commercial fishermen or to reputation damages. Commercial fishermen do not have a unique or special interest under common law that creates a duty to protect their purely economic interests. Allowing such recovery could lead to limitless liability for polluters. However, I acknowledge that under Florida law, duties of care can arise from statutes, judicial interpretations, judicial decisions, and the particular facts of a case.

Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot