United States v. Stevens
2008 WL 4736372, 994 So. 2d 1062 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, a laboratory that manufactures, grows, tests, or handles ultra-hazardous materials owes a duty of reasonable care to members of the general public to avoid their unauthorized interception and dissemination, even if the harm is caused by the foreseeable criminal acts of a third party.
Facts:
- In the fall of 2001, an unknown individual or group mailed letters containing Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax) to recipients in Florida, New York, and Washington, D.C.
- One such anthrax letter was mailed to American Media, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida, where Robert Stevens worked.
- Robert Stevens became ill and died after inhaling the anthrax.
- The strain of anthrax that killed Robert Stevens could be traced to the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
- The United States government (through USAMRIID) and Battelle Memorial Institute, a private research facility, were alleged to have handled anthrax for research.
- Samples of anthrax were allegedly missing from USAMRIID as early as 1992.
- Battelle was accused of failing to implement adequate security procedures, monitor employees with access to anthrax, secure its facility from unauthorized access, or conduct proper background investigations for employees with access to anthrax.
- Sometime before October 2001, anthrax was improperly intercepted from USAMRIID or another research facility to which it had been sent, and subsequently mailed to American Media.
- The complaint did not describe the relationship between the government and the person who initially intercepted the anthrax or between the government and the person who eventually mailed it.
Procedural Posture:
- Maureen Stevens, as wife and personal representative of Robert Stevens, filed two wrongful death suits.
- Stevens sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the government was the source of the anthrax.
- Stevens sued Battelle Memorial Institute, a private research facility, in state court, alleging it was also a source of the anthrax.
- Battelle removed the state case to federal court, and the two suits were consolidated for discovery purposes in the federal district court.
- The United States moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it owed no duty of protection to Robert Stevens and could not control the third-party tortfeasor.
- Battelle moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting Stevens could not satisfy the duty or proximate cause elements.
- The federal district court denied both the government's and Battelle's motions, finding Stevens' claims fell under Florida's 'foreseeable zone of risk' theory and sufficiently stated a claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 302B or 315.
- The government moved for leave to seek reconsideration, which the district court denied.
- The federal district court granted the government's request to certify its order denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit noted the central issue regarding duties under Florida law for organizations handling ultra-hazardous materials.
- The Eleventh Circuit certified a question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court.
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 laboratory that manufactures, grows, tests, or handles ultra-hazardous materials owe a duty of reasonable care to members of the general public to avoid an unauthorized interception and dissemination of the materials?
Opinions:
Majority - Anstead, J.
Yes, a laboratory that manufactures, grows, tests, or handles ultra-hazardous materials does owe a duty of reasonable care to members of the general public to avoid an unauthorized interception and dissemination of the materials. The court reaffirmed Florida's 'foreseeable zone of risk' test from McCain v. Florida Power Corp., explaining that a duty arises when a person's conduct creates a general threat of harm to others. This duty is heightened as the risk of harm created by the activity increases. The court adopted the analysis of the federal district court, which found that handling biohazards constitutes an affirmative act that, under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 302, 302A, and 302B, creates a duty to protect against an unreasonable risk of harm, even from the intentional or criminal conduct of third parties, especially given a history of missing samples. The majority emphasized that the allegations of negligent security of ultra-hazardous materials, combined with the unparalleled risk and the inability of potential victims to protect themselves, necessitate a heightened duty for such laboratories. The court clarified that the allegations describe misfeasance (creating a new risk by failing to secure anthrax) rather than mere nonfeasance (failure to act).
Dissenting - Wells, J.
No, the question concerning liability for injuries from ultra-hazardous materials should be answered based on strict liability principles, not general negligence law. Justice Wells argued that the majority erred by applying McCain v. Florida Power Corp. and negligence principles, as liability for ultra-hazardous activities is controlled by Restatement of Torts § 519 (1938), which imposes strict liability even when utmost care is exercised. While acknowledging a duty to safeguard such materials, Justice Wells asserted that strict liability is not limitless and extends only to persons the actor should recognize as likely to be harmed by the activity, not to the 'general public.' The dissent further stated that McCain was inapplicable because it did not involve ultra-hazardous activities, and its duty was limited to those who foreseeably come into contact with equipment, not the general public. It also noted that the dismissal of strict liability claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act should not distort Florida's substantive law on ultra-hazardous activities, especially as the certified question also applied to a private entity, Battelle.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of duty under Florida negligence law for entities handling extremely dangerous substances. By applying the 'foreseeable zone of risk' doctrine and adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 302, 302A, and 302B, the Supreme Court of Florida established that a heightened duty of reasonable care exists even to protect the general public from the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, provided the defendant's affirmative conduct created the risk. This ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs in similar situations to establish a legal duty, allowing their cases to proceed past initial dismissal stages, and underscores the judiciary's willingness to adapt traditional negligence principles to modern and complex risks posed by scientific advancements.
