Justice for sexual abuse survivors

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 7

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 20, 2026

COURT REVERSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED BASED ON THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS–NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AGAINST FOSTER CARE AGENCIES AND A FOSTER PARENT WERE ACTIONS RELATED TO SEXUAL BATTERY OF A CHILD UNDER 16, TRIGGERING SECTION 95.11(9) THAT ALLOWS SUIT AT ANY TIME

D.L. v. Community Based Care, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D280 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 13, 2026):

The plaintiff ‘s complaint alleged that she entered foster care as a minor and was placed in a foster home. She reported that another child in the home had molested her, but the foster parents took no action. Later, she alleged the foster father sexually battered her.

The plaintiff sued the entities that placed her in the home for failing to properly screen the foster parents and failing to ensure the safety of the child residents. She also sued the foster mother, alleging that their negligence allowed her placement and continued placement in a dangerous home and failed to protect her from sexual abuse.

The trial court dismissed two defendants and entered summary judgment for the other, holding the claims arose from “ordinary” negligence, and were subject to the four year limitations period in section 95.11(3)(a).

The Fifth District reversed. The court applied section 95.11(9) (as it existed when suit was filed), which provided that an action related to a sexual battery violation involving a victim under 16 may be commenced at any time, so long as it would not have been time barred on or before July 1, 2010.

The key question was whether Plaintiff claims against these defendants were “related to” the alleged sexual battery. The court held the phrase” related to” is broad, requiring only a connection, and found the connection obvious because the essence of the plaintiff’s case was that the defendants negligence allowed and facilitated the sexual abuse.

The court also rejected attempts to narrow the statute to only certain causes of action or only to the perpetrator. It emphasized the statute permits an action without limiting the type of claim and is broad enough to include claims against non-perpetrators if related to the sexual battery. The court reversed the remanded for the case to proceed.

WHEN PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AN OPERATIONAL FAILURE, AND NOT A CHALLENGE TO THE DESIGN ITSELF, THE COURT CANNOT DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BASED ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

City of Hialeah Gardens v. Castellanos, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D256 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 11, 2026):

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on collision on a City street after another driver crossed into the opposing lane. The plaintiff sued the City, alleging the City made the crash more likely by failing to install or implement roadway markings and warnings (including no passing zone striping and signage warning drivers not to pass into the opposing lane) that were part of the design. The plaintiff framed the negligence as an operational failure to build or implement what was designed, and not as a critique of the design choices. The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss.

The City took a nonfinal appeal based on sovereign immunity. The Third DCA affirmed.

It held that taking the complaint’s allegations as true, the plaintiff pled an operational level implementation failure and had not alleged a cause of action based on the planning level decision about whether to install traffic control devices or how to design the roadway. Because there is no sovereign immunity for operational level decisions, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss.

ARGUMENTS FOR RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CANNOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION FOR REHEARING AFTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT—CONFLICT WITH THE 5TH DCA CERTIFIED

Hannah v. Malkani, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D279 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 10, 2026).

The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment and denial of his motion for rehearing.

The court did not get to the merits of the argument, because it found that the plaintiff failed to raise the argument based on res judicata and collateral estoppel in his initial response, raising it for the first time in his motion for rehearing of the granting of summary judgment.

The Sixth certified direct conflict with Fifth District cases that have held that a party can preserve a new argument by raising it for the first time in a motion for rehearing.