Duty in a Negligence Claim is a QUESTION OF LAW and Not for the Jury
In a negligence case, the first element a plaintiff is required to prove is that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. If the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, then guess what? The negligence claim fails in entirety. “Whether a duty exists in a negligence case, however, is a matter of law and is, therefore, not a question for the jury to decide.” Sierra Orlando Properties, Ltd. v. Allen, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D1903a (Fla. 6th DCA 2025). The duty element is the only element in a negligence claim that is for the Court to decide. The other elements (breach of the duty, proximate causation, and damages), assuming a duty legally exists, in a negligence claim are for the jury–trier of fact.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in delving into what constitutes a legal duty of care, contained the following noteworthy discussion:
In McCain, the Florida Supreme Court restated the law of negligence and set forth general principles concerning the element of duty. It explained, “a legal duty will arise whenever a human endeavor creates a generalized and foreseeable risk of harming others.” The McCain court described “reasonable, general foresight” as the core of the duty element and instructed that the focus is “whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others.” Thus, under McCain’s framework, “the zone of risk created by a defendant defines the scope of the defendant’s legal duty and the scope of the zone of risk is in turn determined by the foreseeability of a risk of harm to others.” And the duty then placed upon the defendant is to either lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.
At the time it was written, McCain‘s analytical framework was not new. It was based on the fundamental principles announced in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), which recognized duty as a “relational concept.” As then-Judge Canady described it, “[a] duty is owed by a particular defendant to a particular plaintiff based on particular circumstances.”
Allen, supra (internal citations omitted).
Regarding a “legal duty,” bolded in red above, it is important to understand that “Florida law recognizes four sources of duty: ‘(1) legislative enactments or administration regulations; (2) judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations; (3) other judicial precedent; and (4) a duty arising from the general facts of the case.” Allen, supra, n.3 (citation omitted).
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
