Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Florida Legislature 2005 (click for ongoing coverage)

THE LATEST Man gets $2M for 22 years he lost Mystery: Who left money faucet on? Many hurricane relief measures get blown away Dramatic proposal, cautious response Legislature doesn't act on minimum wage deal For open-government cause: 'a mixed bag'

New foes fighting lawsuit changes

Prosecutors and homebuilders join the fight against laws that would make state civil courts friendlier to businesses.

By JONI JAMES
Published April 29, 2005

TALLAHASSEE - By Florida Capitol standards, it's an unusual alliance: Prosecutors have joined forces with trial attorneys to oppose legislation that would require criminals be listed as the responsible party in premises liability lawsuits.

Why would tough-on-crime prosecutors care whether criminals are dragged into civil suits against businesses where crimes may have occurred?

The answer is they're afraid it would lift the burden of responsibility so much that some companies might do away with security measures, including cameras that can provide useful evidence when crimes occur.

It's all part of the strange dynamic emerging in the state Capitol during the final eight days of the 2005 legislative session.

For more than seven weeks, the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers has been the main counter to the push by business lobbyists to pass more than a half-dozen laws that would make Florida's civil courts friendlier to businesses.

Now, others are quietly joining the opposition. Another strange set of bedfellows: The Florida Homebuilders Association is opposing a plan that would limit retailers' liability when products are defective.

"We hate to be dragged into this fight," Keith Hetrick, general counsel for the Florida Homebuilders Association, said Thursday. "We've been very supportive of the governor's efforts in tort reform overall . . . but when it comes to product liability, we're caught in the middle."

Few expect the alliances to change the final outcome in favor of business interests on a wide range of "tort reform" issues, including asbestos litigation, utilities that provide street lights and "slip-and-fall" cases.

Still, the new opponents are likely to give some lawmakers pause on the premises liability issue, and perhaps on product liability for retailers as well.

Even Senate President Tom Lee made no predictions Thursday about how the issues will play out.

Arthur "Buddy" Jacobs, lobbyist for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said his group decided to wade into the fight over premises liability because of the death of Carlie Brucia, the 11-year-old Sarasota girl who was abducted and killed last year. The suspect was caught, in part, because a car wash security camera caught the abduction on tape.

Jacobs said that if businesses perceive that the law no longer holds them as responsible for a visitor's safety, because criminal perpetrators must be named in lawsuits too, they'll stop installing such cameras, stripping law enforcement of a valuable tool.

The House plan (House Bill 1931) would require a jury to award a level of blame to the criminal, even if he or she hasn't been identified, thereby reducing a business' liability.

But the Senate plan (Senate Bill 2566) ignores the criminal but provides limited immunity for businesses if they can prove they employed security measures, such as installing security cameras, to keep visitors safe.

Prosecutors can live with the Senate plan, Jacobs said: "There are a lot of benefits to the security measures businesses take to protect the public."

For homebuilders, the changes being considered in product liability law leave them afraid they will be too financially exposed when the materials they buy are defective and lead to lawsuits by homeowners.

Under the House plan (House Bill 1513), a seller of goods - such as a construction material distributor - would have immunity from product liability unless he altered, designed or assembled the product. That would leave the home builder to sue the manufacturer, and if the maker is out of state, the only option would be a time-consuming trip to federal court.

The Senate plan (Senate bill 2568) limits the retailers' immunity to American-made goods sold in boxes that were packed by manufacturers.

"We have a lot of sympathy for the retailer," Hetrick said. "But this is just not good for our business."

[Last modified April 29, 2005, 00:34:18]