Limones v. School District of Lee County

Supreme Court of Florida · 2015 · Torts

161 So. 3d 384

Updated July 19, 2026

tortsnegligencedutyschool liabilityautomated external defibrillatorstatutory immunitybreachjury question

Facts

Fifteen-year-old Abel Limones, Jr. collapsed during a high school soccer game between two schools in the School District of Lee County. Within minutes he stopped breathing, lost consciousness, and had no detectable pulse; CPR was started, and coach Thomas Busatta, who was AED-certified, yelled for an AED, but the school's AED was not brought onto the field. Emergency responders later used AEDs and revived Abel about twenty-six minutes after his collapse. Abel survived but suffered severe brain injury from lack of oxygen, and petitioners' expert opined that earlier AED shocks would have restored oxygen sooner and prevented that injury.

Issue

Whether the School Board owed Abel a common law duty to take reasonable post-injury measures after he collapsed during a school-sponsored athletic event, and whether the court could decide as a matter of law that this duty did not include making available, diagnosing the need for, or using an AED. The court also considered whether the School Board was immune under section 768.1325 when no AED was actually used or attempted until emergency responders arrived.

Rule

When a school-student special relationship exists, the school owes a common law duty to reasonably supervise students and to act with reasonable care under the circumstances, including taking appropriate post-injury measures to avoid or mitigate aggravation of injury. Once such a duty exists, courts may not collapse breach into duty by deciding as a matter of law the precise precautions a reasonably prudent person should have taken; those questions belong to the jury. Immunity under section 768.1325 applies to harm resulting from the actual or attempted use of an AED, not to a failure to use one at all.

🔒

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 school-supervised wrestling practice in Tampa, 16-year-old Diego Mendez suddenly collapses and becomes unresponsive. A coach calls 911 and starts CPR, but another employee does not bring over an emergency oxygen kit stored in the gym office; Diego later suffers neurological injury allegedly worsened by the delay.

In Diego's negligence suit against the school board, the board moves for summary judgment arguing it had no duty to retrieve or use that specific oxygen kit. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a school-student special relationship creates a common law duty to supervise students and to act with reasonable care under the circumstances, including taking appropriate post-injury measures to avoid aggravation of injury. Once that duty exists, a court may not redefine it by deciding as a matter of law whether a particular precaution was required; that is a breach question for the jury. (Derived from Limones v. School District of Lee County (n.d.).)