Stone v. U.S., 03-16088 Non-Argument Calendar.
| Decision Date | 15 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-16088 Non-Argument Calendar.,03-16088 Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Citation | 373 F.3d 1129 |
| Parties | Hedrick G. STONE, Jr., individually and as parent and next friend of Tiffany Stone, a minor, Diane D. Stone, individually and as parent and next friend of Tiffany Stone, a minor, Tiffany Stone, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Paul S. Boone, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Todd B. Grandy, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before ANDERSON, WILSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Tiffany Stone, then a minor, was given alcohol and assaulted by three active duty naval personnel in the hotel-like transient barracks known as the Combined Bachelor Quarters ("CBQ") at the Mayport Naval Air Station in Mayport, Florida ("NAVSTA"). Her parents, joined by Stone after she reached majority, brought this Federal Tort Claims Act suit against the United States under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-80. When the United States asserted lack of jurisdiction under the so-called "assault and battery" exception to the 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) waiver of sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), the district court retained jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiffs purported to state a claim of negligence antecedent to the alleged assault. Plaintiffs' claim of negligence is based on the allegation that by promulgating standards of conduct in the Mayport barracks ("the instructions"), the United States undertook a duty to ensure that naval personnel complied with those provisions. They asserted that the United States was negligent when Seaman Coby Portillo, who was staying in the CBQ, saw Stone enter the barracks past the normal visiting hours but did not speak to her or otherwise challenge her entry, did not notify proper authorities, and thus failed to enforce the instructions concerning the use of the barracks, which prohibited underage drinking, as well as guest visitation after 10:00 p.m. Thereafter, the district court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, entered summary judgment for the United States by holding that, under Florida law, the United States owed no duty of care to Stone under the voluntarily-adopted instructions, or otherwise. We affirm.
The Federal Tort Claims Act was "designed to provide redress for ordinary torts recognized by state law." Ochran v. United States, 273 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.2001) (internal quotation and citation omitted). As the alleged tort here occurred in Florida, Florida tort law applies. "To state a claim for negligence under Florida law, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach caused the plaintiff to suffer damages." Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir.2001). Whether, under Florida law, the United States has a duty to protect civilian guests from acts committed by naval personnel residing at the CBQ turns on whether the United States voluntarily undertook "to do an act that if not accomplished with due care might increase the risk of harm to others or might result in harm to others due to their reliance upon the undertaking confers a duty of reasonable care, because it thereby `creates a foreseeable zone of risk.'" Union Park Mem'l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So.2d 64, 66-67 (Fla.1996) (quoting McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500 (Fla.1992)).
Plaintiffs argue that the government's duty in this case arises from Naval Mayport Instruction 11103.3 concerning the use of the CBQ which, they contend, mandated that Portillo challenge the presence of Stone and notify NAVSTA authorities that Stone was on the CBQ's premises outside of the guest visiting hours. NAVSTA voluntarily implemented the "Instruction" for "all personnel who are berthed or have occasion to visit the CBQ at NAVSTA Mayport." The intent of the instruction is to "attempt to insure maximum provisions for the health, welfare and morale of each CBQ resident." Instruction 11103.3 further states the following in relevant part:
1. Alcoholic Beverages
a. The possession and use of alcoholic beverages is allowed in CBQ rooms and lounges as permitted by state law; in the state of Florida, one must be 21 years of age....
. . .
c. Drunkenness and/or abuse of alcoholic beverages will not be tolerated....
. . .
28. Guests/Visitors
. . .
b. All guests must be escorted at all times by the sponsor. Appropriate conduct and bearing of guests or visitors is the responsibility of the host residents. Visiting hours will be 0800 to 2200 on weekdays and 0800 to 2400 on weekdays and holidays. Unauthorized guests must be challenged by residents and staff to ensure adequate security within the buildings....
c. Guests, of the same or opposite sex, are permitted in private rooms during the hours outlined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Luis v. Zang
-
Zelaya v. United States
...law of the place where the act or omission occurred” means the law of the state where the alleged tort occurred. Stone v. United States, 373 F.3d 1129, 1130 (11th Cir.2004). As a corollary of that principle, it is well established that a federal statute cannot constitute the “law of the pla......
-
In re Camp Lejeune N.C. Water Contamination Litig.
...v. United States, 569 U.S. 50, 133 S.Ct. 1441, 1443, 185 L.Ed.2d 531 (2013) ).44 Id. 45 Id. at 1323 (citing Stone v. United States, 373 F.3d 1129, 1130 (11th Cir. 2004) ).46 Id. at 1322.47 See Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 11, 82 S.Ct. 585, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962) ; Schippers v. Unite......
-
Katrensky v. U.S.
...919 F.2d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam).Ochran, 273 F.3d at 1317. Thus, Alabama tort law applies. See Stone v. United States, 373 F.3d 1129, 1130 (11th Cir.2004).C. THE LAW OF PREMISES LIABILITY It is undisputed that Irene was an invitee of the defendant. Thus, the defendant owed I......