Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13510/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13510-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13510

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00074-MW-CAS

WILLIAM F. T. LINCOLN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY LLC, 

SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY, 

US PIPELINE INC., 

 Defendants-Appellees,

ROBERT O. BOND,

President Florida Gas Transmission Co. LLC Individual, Company

and Corporate Capacities, Individually and Severally, et al.,

 Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(April 6, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 1 of 6
2

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Lincoln, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal, 

for failure to state a claim, of his complaint against Florida Gas Transmission 

Company LLC (“Florida Gas”) alleging Florida state law claims of intentional 

infliction of emotional distress and negligence. On appeal, Mr. Lincoln argues that 

the district court erred because he sufficiently alleged facts supporting all the 

elements of his claims. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ 

briefing, we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and 

construe the factual allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff. Lord Abbett Mun. Income Fund, Inc. v. Tyson, 671 F.3d 1203, 1206 

(11th Cir. 2012) (citing Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300, 1303 (11th Cir. 

2008)). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if the facts as pleaded 

fail to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 

‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (brackets omitted). “Pro se pleadings are held 

to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, 

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 2 of 6
3

be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th 

Cir. 1998) (citing Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1491 (11th Cir. 

1991)).

Under Florida law, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress has 

four elements: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering, (2) 

outrageous conduct, (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress, and (4) the 

emotional distress was severe. Thomas v. Hosp. Bd. of Dirs. of Lee Cnty., 41 So.3d 

246, 256 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2010). To demonstrate that the defendant’s 

infliction of mental suffering was deliberate or reckless, the plaintiff must show 

that the defendant’s conduct was directed at the plaintiff. See Baker v. Fitzgerald, 

573 So.2d 873, 873 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1990); Habelow v. Travelers Ins. Co., 

389 So.2d 218, 220 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 1980). To demonstrate that the 

defendant engaged in outrageous conduct, the plaintiff must show that the 

defendant’s actions were “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as 

to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and 

utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 

467 So.2d 277, 278-79 (Fla. 1985) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 

(1965)). In evaluating whether conduct reaches this level, the court must make an 

objective determination, and the subjective response of the person suffering 

emotional distress does not control. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So.2d 

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 3 of 6
4

592, 595 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Moreover, whether conduct is outrageous 

enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a 

question of law. Id.

Under Florida law, a cause of action based on negligence comprises four 

elements: (1) a duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the defendant 

to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against 

unreasonable risks; (2) a failure on the defendant’s part to conform to the standard 

required, i.e., a breach of the duty; (3) a reasonably close causal connection 

between the conduct and the resulting injury (proximate cause and cause in fact); 

and (4) actual loss or damage. Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182, 

1185 (Fla. 2003) (citing Prosser and Keaton on the Law of Torts 164-65). The 

determination of the existence of a duty is a matter of law and is not a factual 

question for the jury to decide. McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 503 

(Fla. 1992). Generally, property owners may use their property in any reasonable 

and lawful manner, so long as their use does not constitute a nuisance. Reaver v. 

Martin Theatres of Fla., 52 So.2d 682, 683 (Fla. 1951). Florida law does not 

recognize a specific duty to protect the value of an adjoining landowner’s property.

Even when all of the elements of a negligence claim are established, a 

plaintiff’s recovery for emotional harm is limited by Florida’s impact rule. R.J. v. 

Humana of Fla., Inc., 652 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla. 1995). According to the impact 

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 4 of 6
5

rule, “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the 

negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical 

injuries sustained in an impact.” Id. (quoting Reynolds v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 611 So.2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1992)). A few narrow 

exceptions to the impact rule have been created, such as for intentional torts, 

certain “freestanding torts,” and breaches of the duty of confidentiality as to the 

release of sensitive personal information. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections v. Abril, 969 

So.2d 201, 206, 207 (Fla. 2007).

Federal safety standards for pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities are 

set out in the Natural Gas Pipeline and Safety Act. 49 U.S.C. § 60102. The 

purpose of this Act is “to provide adequate protection against risks to life and 

property posed by pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities by improving the 

regulatory and enforcement authority of the Secretary of Transportation.” Id.

§ 60102(a)(1). The act provides a private right of action to seek an injunction for 

violations. Id. § 60121(a)(1). It does not restrict the right to relief under other 

laws or common law. Id. § 60121(d).1

Mr. Lincoln failed to allege facts necessary to support his claims for 

intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. As to intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, he failed to allege conduct sufficiently outrageous 

 1 Mr. Lincoln does not assert a claim under § 60121(a)(1); he relies instead on § 60121(d).

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 5 of 6
6

and extreme to meet the second element of that tort, even assuming arguendo that 

he has met the other elements, such as the conduct being directed at him and 

causation. As to negligence, Mr. Lincoln failed to allege any facts giving rise to a 

duty on the part of Florida Gas to protect him from mental and emotional harm and 

property value loss, even if we assume the truth of his allegations that Florida Gas 

is in violation of state and federal safety statutes. Moreover, he failed to allege any 

ruptures or leaks in the pipelines that would indicate any foreseeable risk of harm. 

And, because he has not satisfied Florida’s impact rule, his allegations are 

insufficient to permit recovery for any of the harms he describes. Accordingly, we 

affirm the dismissal of Mr. Lincoln’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress and negligence.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-13510 Date Filed: 04/06/2015 Page: 6 of 6