Skip to main content
The Week In Torts – Cases from March 31, 2023
Play it again, Sam
FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY
VOLUME 48, NUMBER 13
CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MARCH 31, 2023
NEW RULE ADDRESSING WHEN THE JURY REQUESTS A REVIEW OF TRIAL TESTIMONY.
In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.453, 48 Fla. L. Weekly S51 (Fla. Mar. 30, 2023):
New Rule 1.453, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. articulates how trial courts are to proceed when a juror in a civil case asks for trial transcripts or asks for testimony to be read or played back. The court may allow the playback (either by reading or by playing) or the trial court may, in its discretion, respond to the request in writing, as long as the parties are allowed to put their objections on the record.
If a juror asks for trial transcripts, the trial court must notify the jury that the transcripts are unavailable but that a request for a read back or a playback may be made, and that such request may or may not be granted at the trial court’s discretion.
NO ERROR IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST ARCHDIOCESE BASED ON FINDING THAT CLAIM WAS BARRED BY THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS – – ERROR TO FIND THE PLAINTIFF’S INTENTIONAL INFLICITON OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHERE THE CLAIM RELATED TO AN ACT OF SEXUAL BATTERY, AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNDER THE AGE OF 16 WHEN THE ABUSE OCCURRED.
Doe v. Archdiocese of Miami, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D603 (Fla. 3rd DCA Mar. 22, 2023):
The plaintiff was 29 years old at the time he filed his lawsuit seeking damages from the Archdiocese for its alleged intentional acts related to the sexual abuse by a priest when the plaintiff was under the age of 16.
The plaintiff asserted that the Archdiocese employed, retained, supervised and was otherwise responsible for the priest who allegedly abused the plaintiff. The complaint contained detailed allegations about the known long history of the priest’s child sexual abuse, which dated as least as far back as 1969. The plaintiff asserted that the Archdiocese had concealed this information.
The complaint contained two counts: a count for negligence against the Archdiocese for failing to protect the plaintiff from sexual abuse, and the claim against the Archdiocese for its intentional acts of ignoring and concealing allegations of child sexual abuse.
The Archdiocese argued that the claims were barred by Section 95.11, persuading the trial court to dismiss them.
The court explained that the limitations period began to run in accordance with Section 35.031(1) Florida Statutes, when the last element constituting the cause of action accrued. The complaint alleged that the last act of abuse was in 2001, when the plaintiff was nine years old, and thus any claims brought after 2005 were barred by the four year statute of limitations. The court rejected application of the delayed discovery rule, which the Florida Supreme Court has overruled in these circumstances.
As to the intentional infliction claim, the legislature abolished the statute of limitations for actions related to sexual battery on a victim under age 16 (as long as the claim was not time barred before July 1, 2010).
The court found that Section 95.11(7) broadly applies to any active abuse against a child, and because the intentional tort was founded on alleged abuse as defined in the relevant statutes, and the tort could be commenced anytime within seven years after the age of majority, the intentional tort claim survived, and the plaintiff had a viable claim which the trial court should not have dismissed.
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT PARTY FAILED TO PROPERLY REQUEST A TRIAL DE NOVO PURSUANT TO SECTION 44.103(5) AND RULE 1.820(H) BASED ON A SCRIVENOR’S ERROR IN THE MOTION – – THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 44.103 IS FULFILLED WHEN A PARTY IS PLACED ON REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE OPPOSING SIDE’S INTENTION TO PROCEED TO TRIAL, AND THAT INTENTION IS CONVEYED WITHIN RULE 1.820(H)’S 20 DAY TIME FRAME.
Batiesse, Inc. v. NAPL Associates, LLC, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D618 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 22, 2023):