Statutory Strict Liability for Environmental Contamination-A Private Cause of Action to Remedy Pollu

For someone trying to sue for damages from pollution in Florida, having a specific law to rely on seems like a good thing. But there’s a debate about whether the law actually allows for individual lawsuits for damages from pollution. Different courts have ruled in different ways, making it confusing for lawyers. The law was passed in different parts over the years, which adds to the confusion. So even though there’s a law that seems like it should help, it’s not completely clear how it works. Part I and Part II of Chapter 376 were enacted to protect Florida’s coastline and waters from pollution. Part I focused on protecting the seacoast, while Part II extended the protection to all of the state’s lands and waters. Both parts create a cause of action for individuals to recover damages for violations of the prohibited activities. Fortunately, there have been no reported cases of individuals needing to use this cause of action under Part I. The U.S. Supreme Court also upheld the Florida law, noting that it imposes strict liability for any damage caused by an oil spill in the state’s waters. The Supreme Court said that the state can make laws to hold people responsible for damage from pollution. The law also says that people can sue for damages without having to prove negligence. This shows that the law is meant to allow individuals to sue for damages from pollution. So it seems pretty clear that the law allows for this. Amendments to F.S. §376.313 have clarified its original intent over the years. The courts have struggled with whether this law allows people to sue for damages, and there is debate about how much leeway there is in allowing these types of lawsuits. As Alexander Hamilton once said, laws are meaningless without courts to interpret them. Recent court decisions have leaned towards allowing people to sue under this law, but the exact scope of that permission is still up for debate. In a personal injury lawsuit called Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking, the court suggested that people can sue for being exposed to toxic pollutants under a specific law. But in another case called Mostoufi v. Presto Food Stores, the court said that the law doesn’t actually allow people to sue for damages from pollution. A third case called Italiano v. Jones Chemicals, said that people can only sue for damages if they are connected to cleaning up pollution. So, the law is kind of confusing and different courts have different opinions about it. In recent court opinions, it has been determined that a person can sue a previous property owner for the costs of cleaning up pollution on the property, as allowed under Florida law. This means that if someone buys a property and later finds pollution on it, they can sue the previous owner to pay for the cleanup. This interpretation is supported by several court cases and is the generally accepted understanding of the law. There is a debate about whether a law that allows people to sue for pollution should only cover cleanup costs or if it should also cover other types of harm, like personal injuries or property value loss. Some court cases have different opinions on this. But even if the law only covers cleanup costs, it’s still a good way for people to get their money back because they can also get their attorney’s fees paid for.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/statutory-strict-liability-for-environmental-contamination-a-private-cause-of-action-to-remedy-pollu/