Opinion ID: 75798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty under Florida Negligence Law

Text: Alternatively, the Government argues that the district erred because the district court rejected the Government’s defense that it did not owe Plaintiff a duty under Florida’s negligence law. The FTCA creates liability for the United States only if the act at issue is a tort in the state where the conduct occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 16 2674 (1994). In this case, the Government’s conduct and the accident occurred in Florida. To succeed on a negligence claim in Florida, Plaintiff must “show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached the duty, that the breach caused plaintiff’s injury, and that damages are owed.” Ewing v. Sellinger, 758 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). The Government argues only the issue of whether the district court erred in finding that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty when it performed the NDI test. Florida law provides that “[t]he duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct forseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others.” McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992). Under this standard, the Government owed Plaintiff a duty because an accident of this type was foreseeable. In fact, the FAA AD expressly warned the Government that this type of accident could occur absent proper NDI testing. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s finding that the Government owed Plaintiff a duty under Florida negligence law. 17