We too often here about a child drowning in a body of water. So many of our beautiful communities are built next to a natural lake or contain man-made lakes. It begs the question…..Can a developer face liability if a child drowns in a river or other body of water? That question was answered in Feliciano v. Rivertree Landings Apartments, LLC, 387 So.3d 422 (Fla. App. 2 Dist., 2024) where a Personal representative for a child who drowned in a river that abuted an apartment complex in which she was a resident brought a wrongful death action against the complex owner and management company for the complex, alleging negligence. The Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Paul L. Huey, J., 2023 WL 2874410, granted owner's motion for summary judgment and the Representative appealed.
On Appeal, the court said:
1. the body-of-water rule provides that owners of bodies of water are not guilty of actionable negligence on account of drownings therein unless the bodies of water are constructed so as to constitute a trap or unless there is some unusual element of danger lurking about them not existent generally in similar bodies of water; this is true even where the drowning victim is tragically a child.
2. absent unusual, dangerous conditions, the owner of natural or artificial body of water has no duty to fence it and has no duty to post guards or signs in areas not designated for swimming;
3. Drowning is a risk inherent in any body of water but the owner of a body of water is not liable based solely on a plaintiff's failure or inherent inability to heed the open and obvious danger of the water.
It’s tough to argue with the court’s logic. Some bodies of water are extremely large. Can you imagine if every owner of every lake was required to put fencing around it? It would be a pretty huge task for many. It would also depreciate the appearance of a natural body of water that the owner paid for and wants to keep. It would also make the cost of our communities more expensive.
This is obviously a terrible case. Does anyone disagree with the result reached by the appeals court?
Comments