McCain v. Florida Power Corporation
1992 Fla. LEXIS 103, 593 So. 2d 500, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 64 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In negligence actions, the element of duty is a legal question for the court concerning whether a defendant's conduct created a broad, foreseeable "zone of risk," while the element of proximate causation is a factual question for the jury concerning whether the specific injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- Florida Power Corporation owned and maintained underground electrical cables.
- Thomas McCain was operating a mechanical trencher in the vicinity of these cables.
- An employee of Florida Power had visited the site and marked areas on the ground to indicate where it was safe to operate the trencher.
- McCain operated his trencher in an area that had been marked as "safe" by the Florida Power employee.
- While trenching in the designated safe area, the blade of McCain's machine struck an underground Florida Power electrical cable.
- As a result of striking the energized cable, McCain sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas McCain filed a negligence lawsuit against Florida Power Corporation in a Florida trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of McCain for $175,000, which included a 30% reduction for McCain's comparative negligence.
- Florida Power Corporation, as the appellant, appealed to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, ordering that a directed verdict be entered in favor of Florida Power Corporation.
- Thomas McCain, as the petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction based on a conflict with prior decisions.
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 defendant's legal duty of care in a negligence action require foreseeing the specific injury that occurred, or is the duty established by the creation of a general, foreseeable zone of risk of harm to others?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kogan
No. A defendant's legal duty is established by the creation of a general, foreseeable zone of risk, not by the ability to foresee the specific injury that actually occurred. The court distinguishes the two roles of foreseeability in negligence. For the element of duty, which is a question of law for the judge, the inquiry is whether the defendant’s conduct created a broad 'zone of risk' that poses a general threat to others. For the element of proximate causation, a question of fact for the jury, the inquiry is whether the defendant's breach foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury. Florida Power's operation of high-voltage underground cables unquestionably created a foreseeable zone of risk, establishing a duty of care to McCain as a matter of law. It was then properly left to the jury to decide the factual question of whether Florida Power's negligent marking of the ground was a proximate cause of McCain's specific injuries.
Concurring - Justice Overton
Yes. Justice Overton concurred with the majority's reasoning but wrote separately to emphasize that the proper marking of buried cables can significantly reduce or eliminate a power company's liability. He noted that if a person knowingly digs in an area marked as unsafe, the principles of comparative negligence would make it difficult for that plaintiff to establish proximate causation, even though the power company's general duty of care still exists.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification of the role of foreseeability in Florida negligence law, firmly separating the legal question of duty from the factual question of proximate cause. It establishes that a duty of care arises whenever a defendant's conduct creates a generalized 'zone of risk,' preventing courts from dismissing cases by narrowly defining duty based on the foreseeability of the specific harm. This reinforces the jury's role in determining causation for all but the most freakish and improbable chains of events, thereby making it easier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment or directed verdict motions once they establish they were within a foreseeable zone of risk.
