Limones v. School District of Lee County
161 So. 3d 384 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district has a common law duty to supervise students and render reasonable aid to an injured student. Whether the failure to use available medical equipment, such as an Automated External Defibrillator (AED), constitutes a breach of that duty is a question of fact for the jury to decide based on the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.
Facts:
- On November 13, 2008, fifteen-year-old Abel Limones, Jr., a student at East Lee County High School, suddenly collapsed during a school-sponsored soccer game.
- Within three minutes of collapsing, Abel appeared to stop breathing, lost consciousness, and had no detectable pulse.
- His coach, Thomas Busatta, was certified in the use of an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) and called for one to be brought to the field.
- An AED was available at the game facility, owned by the host school within the same School District of Lee County, but it was never brought onto the field for Abel.
- Emergency responders arrived approximately ten minutes after the collapse and used their own AED, but Abel was not revived until twenty-six minutes after his initial collapse.
- As a result of the prolonged lack of oxygen to his brain, Abel suffered a severe and permanent brain injury, leaving him in a nearly persistent vegetative state.
Procedural Posture:
- Abel Limones' parents sued the School Board of Lee County in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- The School Board moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to use an AED.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board.
- The parents, as appellants, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the School Board had no common law duty to use an AED and was statutorily immune.
- The parents, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, arguing the appellate decision conflicted with existing precedent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district have a specific common law duty to use an available Automated External Defibrillator (AED) on a student athlete who collapses with cardiac arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. A school district’s duty is not defined by specific required actions, but by the general standard of providing reasonable care under the circumstances to an injured student; whether the failure to use an available AED breached that general duty is a question of fact for the jury. The lower court improperly expanded its analysis of the legal question of 'duty' into the factual question of 'breach.' The court's role is to determine the existence of a duty as a minimal threshold, which is established here by the special relationship between a school and its students. Once that duty to render aid is established, it is the exclusive role of the jury to determine what precautions and actions were reasonably required under the circumstances. The court distinguished this case from L.A. Fitness, which involved a business-customer relationship, by emphasizing that the school-student relationship is unique and imposes a higher standard of care. Finally, the statutory immunity provided by the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act only applies to harm resulting from the use or attempted use of an AED, not the failure to use one.
Dissenting - Canady, J.
This opinion does not address the merits of the issue, instead arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The dissent contends there is no express and direct conflict between the lower appellate court's decision and the precedent of McCain v. Florida Power Corp. because the facts of the two cases are completely different. McCain involved a foreseeable 'zone of risk' created by underground power cables, whereas this case involves a student's sudden collapse from a pre-existing medical condition. Without a direct conflict, the dissent argues, the Supreme Court should dismiss the review.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction in negligence law between the legal question of duty and the factual question of breach. It prevents courts from creating narrow 'no-duty' rules regarding specific technologies or actions, instead preserving the jury's role in determining what constitutes 'reasonable care' under the circumstances. The ruling ensures that the standard of care can evolve with technological advancements and societal expectations. Consequently, defendants in special relationship cases, like schools, will find it more difficult to obtain summary judgment by arguing they had no specific duty to perform a particular action, and will more likely have to argue the reasonableness of their conduct to a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Limones v. School District of Lee County