Why HB 837 in Florida Falls Short in Shielding Property Owners from Negligence Liability by Including Criminal Defendants on the Jury Verdict Form
House Bill 837 (HB 837) was introduced in Florida with the intention of reforming tort laws and addressing liability issues. One of the significant components of this bill was the inclusion of criminal defendants on the jury verdict form. The premise behind this inclusion is to allocate a portion of the liability to criminal actors, theoretically reducing the liability of property owners in negligence cases. However, despite its intentions, HB 837 does not effectively accomplish this presumptive effect. Here’s why:
The Concept of Comparative Fault
To understand the impact of HB 837, it’s essential to grasp the concept of comparative fault. Comparative fault allows for the allocation of fault among multiple parties who may have contributed to the harm. Florida follows a modified comparative fault system, where a plaintiff can recover damages only if they are less than 50% at fault for their injury.
HB 837 aims to include criminal defendants in this comparative fault analysis. The idea is that if a criminal actor is found responsible for a portion of the harm, then the property owner’s liability should be reduced correspondingly.
The Complexity of Criminal and Civil Liability
Criminal liability and civil liability operate on different principles and standards of proof. In criminal cases, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while in civil cases, it is “preponderance of the evidence.” Including a criminal defendant on a civil jury verdict form blurs these lines and creates practical and legal complications.
In many cases, criminal defendants may not be present in the civil trial, either because they have not been apprehended or because they are not directly involved in the civil proceedings. This absence makes it difficult to assess their fault accurately. Furthermore, a criminal conviction requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard than the preponderance of evidence required in civil cases. Therefore, including a criminal defendant on a jury verdict form in a civil case can lead to inconsistent and unreliable outcomes.
Impact on the Allocation of Fault
Even if a criminal defendant is included on the jury verdict form, it does not necessarily mean that property owners will see a significant reduction in their liability. In negligence cases, the focus is on whether the property owner failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.
For instance, if a property owner fails to provide adequate security measures in a high-crime area, the argument that a criminal defendant should bear most of the fault does not absolve the property owner of their responsibility to ensure safety. Juries are likely to consider whether the harm was foreseeable and whether the property owner took appropriate steps to prevent it. If the property owner’s negligence is a significant contributing factor, they may still be held largely responsible despite the presence of a criminal actor on the verdict form.
Juror Perceptions and Bias
Jurors are laypeople who may not fully understand the nuances of comparative fault, especially when it involves criminal defendants. The inclusion of a criminal defendant on the jury verdict form can lead to confusion and bias. Jurors might be influenced by the criminal nature of the defendant’s actions and might either overestimate or underestimate the criminal defendant’s fault relative to the property owner’s negligence.
Furthermore, the presence of a criminal defendant can evoke strong emotional responses from jurors, potentially overshadowing the objective evaluation of the property owner’s conduct. This emotional bias can skew the allocation of fault and undermine the fair assessment of liability.
Legal and Procedural Challenges
Implementing HB 837 presents several legal and procedural challenges. Identifying and including criminal defendants in civil cases requires additional legal processes and coordination between criminal and civil courts. This integration can be cumbersome and may lead to delays and increased litigation costs.
Moreover, criminal defendants may not have the resources or willingness to participate in civil proceedings, further complicating their inclusion on the jury verdict form. The absence of the criminal defendant in the civil trial can lead to an incomplete presentation of facts and hinder the jury’s ability to make an informed decision.
The Real Focus: Property Owner Negligence
The crux of negligence cases involving property owners is whether they fulfilled their duty of care. Regardless of the actions of a criminal actor, property owners have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm. The presence of criminal activity in an area often heightens this duty of care, requiring property owners to implement more robust security measures.
HB 837’s focus on including criminal defendants on the jury verdict form diverts attention from the core issue of whether property owners met their obligations. It shifts the narrative towards the criminal actions, which, while relevant, should not overshadow the assessment of the property owner’s negligence.
Potential for Unintended Consequences
HB 837 may also lead to unintended consequences. By emphasizing the role of criminal defendants, the bill could encourage property owners to downplay their responsibilities and invest less in preventive measures. This shift could result in environments that are less safe for the public, as property owners might feel shielded from liability due to the inclusion of criminal defendants in the fault assessment.
Conclusion: The Inadequacy of HB 837
HB 837 in Florida, with its provision to include criminal defendants on the jury verdict form, does not effectively achieve its intended goal of reducing property owner liability in negligence cases. The complexities of integrating criminal and civil liability, the potential for juror bias, and the legal and procedural challenges undermine the efficacy of this approach.
Ultimately, the focus should remain on whether property owners exercised reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm. Negligence law aims to hold parties accountable for their failure to meet this standard, and diluting this responsibility by shifting attention to criminal actors does not serve the interests of justice or public safety. Property owners must continue to prioritize preventive measures and uphold their duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of those on their premises.
Common Law and HB 837’s Shortcomings
The common law in Florida is well-established in the area of negligent security. For decades, it has been clear that intentional criminal acts cannot be considered an independent intervening cause or superseding cause when assessing the liability of property owners. Cases such as Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980), and Merrill Crossings Assoc. v. McDonald, 705 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1998), affirm this principle.
The language of HB 837 fails to specifically address or change this established common law. The bill states that the trier of fact must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury but does not explicitly state that intentional criminal acts can be considered a contributing cause. Florida law requires that any statute derogating from common law must do so in clear and unequivocal terms. HB 837 does not meet this standard, and thus, does not effectively alter the legal landscape.
Conclusion
In summary, HB 837 was an attempt by the Florida Legislature to shift liability in negligent security cases by including criminal defendants on the jury verdict form. However, due to its poorly drafted language and a lack of clear direction to alter established common law, the bill fails to achieve its intended effect. Property owners must continue to bear responsibility for failing to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable criminal acts, ensuring that the safety and rights of crime victims are protected.
If you are injured on someone’s property due to their negligence, call Jaime “Mr. 786Abogado” Suarez today to Get You Paid!