Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC
Decision Date | 17 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. SC08-1920.,SC08-1920. |
Citation | 39 So.3d 1216 |
Parties | Howard CURD, et al., Petitioners,v.MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
F. Wallace Pope, Jr. of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, and Burns, LLP, Clearwater FL, and Andra T. Dreyfus, Clearwater, FL, for Petitioners.
David Barnett Weinstein and Kimberly S. Mello of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, FL, and Arthur J. England, Jr. of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, for Respondent.
Charles W. Hall and Mark D. Tinker of Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, and Paul M. Smith and Michelle A. Groman of Jenner and Block, LLP Washington, DC, on behalf of General Dynamics Corporation and General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.
This cause is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 993 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). In its decision the district court ruled upon the following questions, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
Id. at 1079. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons explained below, we answer the questions in the affirmative and quash the decision below.
In Curd, 993 So.2d 1078, the Second District Court of Appeal summarized the facts as follows:
On appeal, the Second District affirmed the trial court's order dismissing Curd's proposed class action lawsuit against Mosaic Fertilizer. See Curd, 993 So.2d at 1079. The court held that under traditional principles of negligence the fishermen failed to state a cause of action. See id. at 1083. The court reasoned that an action in common law either through strict liability or negligence was not permitted because the fishermen did not sustain bodily injury or property damage. The strict liability and negligence claims sought purely economic damages unrelated to any damage to the fishermen's property. Accordingly, the court further reasoned that Mosaic did not owe the fishermen an independent duty of care to protect their purely economic interests. See id. at 1082-83. Additionally, in evaluating the fishermen's statutory liability claim under section 376.313(3), the court concluded that there is no Florida precedent that permits a recovery for damages under section 376.313(3) when the party seeking the damages does not own or have a possessory interest in the property damaged by the pollution. See id. at 1084. Further, the court said that there is no express language from the Legislature stating that it intended the statute to create a wide array of claims by people indirectly affected by pollution. See id. The court also declined to read into the statute a legislative intent in section 376.313(3) to allow such economic claims based on the fishermen's unique relationship with the fish or based on the fact that the fishermen hold commercial fishing licenses. Moreover, the court declined to recognize such a right as a matter of tort law. See id. at 1085. The court was unconvinced that a special theory should be established under the common law for a narrow subset of the people who are indirectly or remotely injured by pollution. See id. at 1085-86.
Pursuant to article V, section 3, subsection (b)(4) of the Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), the Second District certified the questions above to be of great public importance. See Curd, 993 So.2d at 1079. We granted review to answer the certified questions.
We first address whether the private cause of action recognized in section 376.313(3), Florida Statutes (2004),1 allows commercial fishermen to recover damages for their loss of income despite the fact that the fishermen do not own any property damaged by the pollution. Our interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to the de novo standard of review. See Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006); see also B.Y. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004) ( ).
When construing a statute, we strive to effectuate the Legislature's intent. See, e.g., Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006) (); State v. J.M., 824 So.2d 105, 109 (Fla.2002) ( ). To determine that intent, we look first to the statute's plain language. See Borden, 921 So.2d at 595. We have held that “when the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Id. (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla.2005)). In reaching our conclusion that chapter 376, Florida Statutes (2004), allows a cause of action by these plaintiffs, we have construed several provisions of the chapter in pari materia and given effect to the various sections. See E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614, 629 (Fla.2009); McDonald v. State, 957 So.2d 605, 610 (Fla.2007); Zold v. Zold, 911 So.2d 1222, 1229-30 (Fla.2005).
Section 376.313(3), Florida Statutes (2004), provides as follows:
Except as provided in s. 376.3078(3) and (11) nothing contained in ss. 376.30-376.319 prohibits any person from bringing a cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction for all damages resulting from a discharge or other condition of pollution covered by ss. 376.30-376.319. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit or diminish a party's right to contribution from other parties jointly or severally liable for a prohibited discharge of pollutants or hazardous substances or other pollution conditions. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) or subsection (5) in any such suit, it is not necessary for such person to plead or prove negligence in any form or manner. Such person need only plead and prove the fact of the prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition and that it has occurred. The only defenses to such cause of action shall be those specified in s. 376.308.
(Emphasis added.) The Second District Court of Appeal provided the following legislative history regarding section 376.313(3):
Curd, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.(In re S. Cal. Gas Leak Cases)
...in the time-worn principle that "seamen are the favorites of admiralty." ( Id. at pp. 567, 570 ; see also Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (Fla. 2010) 39 So.3d 1216, 1228.) Recovery in Union Oil was therefore tightly circumscribed: it was "limited to the class of commercial fishermen" whose l......
-
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico
...to allow state liability statutes to apply to oil spills outside of state waters. Plaintiffs also insist that under Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla.2010), “any person” can recover for damages suffered as a result of pollution under the Florida Pollutant Discharge Preventi......
-
Marrero v. State
...interpretation of a statute is a purely legal matter and therefore subject to a de novo standard of review. See Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216, 1220 (Fla.2010) (citing Kephart v. Hadi, 932 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Fla.2006)). Here, a plain reading of the criminal mischief statute re......
-
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product" (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A )); Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC , 39 So.3d 1216, 1227 (Fla. 2010) (noting that a negligence claim requires identification of "[a] duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiri......
-
Table of cases
...N.Y.S.2d 389, 9 N.E.3d 884 (2014), §7:02 Cuddy v. L. & M. Equip. Co. , 352, Mass. 458, 464 (1967), §9:05 Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC , 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010), §22:20 CVS Corp., Inc. v. Smith , 981 So.2d 1128 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007), §8:24 D Datskow v. Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft ......
-
Table of cases
...670, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 (2002), §23:23 Cuddy v. L. & M. Equip. Co. , 352, Mass. 458, 464 (1967), §9:05 Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC , 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010), §22:20 CVS Corp., Inc. v. Smith , 981 So.2d 1128 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007), §8:24 D D.C. Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 217 ......
-
Table of cases
...670, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 (2002), §23:23 Cuddy v. L. & M. Equip. Co. , 352, Mass. 458, 464 (1967), §9:05 Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC , 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010), §22:20 CVS Corp., Inc. v. Smith , 981 So.2d 1128 (Ala.Civ.App. 2007), §8:24 D D.C. Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 217 ......
-
Negligence cases
...“proximate cause,” and which includes the notion of cause in fact; and 4. actual loss or damage. Source Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC , 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010). See Also 1. Peoples Gas Sys. v. Posen Constr., Inc. , 322 So.3d 604, 612-13 (Fla. 2021). 2. National Deaf Academy, LLC v. Towne......