In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that commercial fishermen could sue a fertilizer company for releasing pollutants. This decision expands the ability for private individuals to sue for environmental damage, which contradicts the law’s original purpose of protecting natural resources. The impact of this decision is important for understanding how environmental laws are enforced. The law about who can sue for cleanup costs or damages under F.S. Ch. 376 is unclear and has been the subject of several court cases. The courts have disagreed on whether the law creates a new cause of action for polluting land and groundwater or allows a current landowner to sue a polluting prior owner. Some courts have allowed lawsuits for cleanup costs under the law, while others have not. The Supreme Court has not yet resolved these conflicting opinions. In a court case between Courtney and Publix, the court ruled that Courtney could sue Publix for damages to its property, even though Publix was immune from cleanup costs. Another case involving contamination claims against Aramark was dismissed because there was no evidence that Aramark caused the contamination. The Florida Supreme Court had to step in to resolve a conflict between these two cases. The court decided that F.S. §376.313 allows people to sue for damages if there is pollution. This means that someone who caused pollution can be taken to court and have to pay money for the harm they caused. But it’s not clear who can sue or what kind of harm is covered. In this case, a company was accused of dumping waste onto properties bought by the people suing them. The court said that in order to get compensation, the plaintiffs have to prove that their property is actually contaminated. Since each property is different, it’s not a common issue for the whole group. So, the court didn’t let the case go forward as a class action. In a case involving a fertilizer storage facility and commercial fishermen, the court had to determine if the fishermen could recover damages for their loss of income due to pollution in the water, even though they didn’t own any property damaged by the pollution. The court ultimately decided that the fishermen could indeed recover economic damages under the law. However, there are still questions about who can be held liable for such damages and what defenses they might have. These issues are still being debated in the legal system. CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act give government agencies and some other groups the power to sue for damages to natural resources caused by pollution. Private citizens can’t sue for these damages, only the designated groups can. These laws are meant to protect the environment and the public’s right to natural resources. If you’re interested in the history and legal issues around these laws, you can read more in the article by Gary K. Hunter. In a court case involving environmental damage, a manufacturer of hazardous chemicals was not held responsible for a discharge during transport. The court referenced other cases where different parties were found liable for environmental damage. The court also discussed the application of common law theories in cases of land damage due to pollution from neighboring properties. There are a bunch of court cases talking about who can sue for pollution damages. It’s a bit confusing because the rules for government agencies and private people are different. In one case, the court said the rules for government agencies shouldn’t be different from the rules for private people unless the law specifically says so. Another case was about what counts as “damage” from pollution. The court said it could include harm to the environment and living things, not just property. But there’s still some confusion about how the law should be interpreted. These are lawyers who specialize in environmental and land use law in Florida. They work for different law firms and have experience in handling environmental issues, permits, and litigation related to land use. They are members of a section that focuses on these areas of law and work to improve the justice system and promote legal principles.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/strictly-speaking-does-f-s-376-3133-create-duty-to-everybody-everywhere-part-i/
Leave a Reply