Limones v. School District of Lee County

Florida Second District Court of Appeal · 2015 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutySchool liabilityAED immunitycommon law dutystudent athletespost-injury efforts

Facts

During a high school soccer game at Riverdale High School, Abel Limones, Jr. collapsed on the field, lost consciousness, stopped breathing, and had no discernible pulse within minutes. His coach and a nurse bystander performed CPR, 9-1-1 was called, and emergency responders later resuscitated him with defibrillation, but only after a significant delay; Abel suffered severe permanent brain damage. Plaintiffs alleged the School Board was negligent in failing to maintain an AED on or near the field, make it available, or use it. The record showed that an AED was on a golf cart near the soccer field's end zone and that the School Board had acquired AEDs and trained personnel in their use.

Issue

Whether the School Board had a common law or statutory duty to make available, diagnose the need for, or use an AED on a student athlete who collapsed during a high school soccer game, and if so, whether the School Board was immune from liability under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act.

Rule

A school board's common law duty to use appropriate post-injury efforts to protect a student athlete against aggravation does not, under the current state of the law and these circumstances, include a duty to make available, diagnose the need for, or use an AED. Acquiring an AED and training personnel does not create such a duty under the undertaker's doctrine absent proof that the undertaking increased the risk of harm or induced detrimental reliance. Section 1006.165 requires only that member schools have an operational AED on school grounds, register its location, and provide appropriate training, and neither section 768.13 nor section 768.1325 creates a duty or private cause of action requiring AED use.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a varsity lacrosse match in Orlando, 17-year-old Noah Mercer suddenly collapses on the sideline and becomes unresponsive. Coaches call 9-1-1 immediately and begin CPR, but no one retrieves the automated external defibrillator stored in the athletic office 150 yards away before paramedics arrive.

In Noah's negligence suit against the county school board, which argument is most likely to succeed under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority recognized a school's common law duty to use appropriate post-injury efforts to protect a student athlete from aggravation, but held that this duty did not extend, under the circumstances presented and the current state of the law, to making available, diagnosing the need for, or using an AED. The court treated AED use as more akin to medical care or rescue services than ordinary first aid.