Strictly Speaking, Does F.S. §376.313(3) Create Duty to Everybody, Everywhere?, Part II

Not all cases of pollution lead to a strict liability claim under F.S. §376.313. Sometimes, you can’t get compensation for the harm to your reputation under this law. The Florida Supreme Court says that the state has strict laws to prevent pollution and allows people to sue for damages if they can prove they were harmed by pollution. But to sue, the pollution has to be a specific type and the person suing has to show actual harm. For example, in one case, the court said a group of people couldn’t sue a company for pollution because there was no proof that the pollution was harmful. And if the pollution is nearby but doesn’t actually affect someone’s property, they can’t sue for “stigma damages” unless they can show their land was actually contaminated. So, just seeing pollution or being near it might not be enough to sue. The Mosaic court overturned the decision in Cunningham, which allowed people to sue for personal injury as “environmental and health hazards” under a specific Florida law. The court ruled that private parties can seek damages for harm to natural resources, but this could be in conflict with federal law. The Florida Supreme Court’s decisions are important and binding for everyone in the state, and they have the final say on legal matters. Certain federal statutes create natural resource claims, allowing government agencies like the Department of Interior and NOAA to sue to restore damaged resources. Private parties are not allowed to sue for these damages, and state agencies can only do so if authorized by the governor. In some cases, state laws may mirror federal laws regarding natural resource damages. Additionally, there is no private cause of action provided for in these statutes. The 1990 law says that when natural resources are damaged, the person responsible has to pay to fix or replace them. Money from the oil pollution fund can also be used to pay for assessments of the damage and for restoration plans. The law defines natural resources as things like water, wetlands, beaches, and animals, but the specific definition varies depending on the law being used. In Florida, there’s a law that allows the state to recover money for damage to natural resources. This law is similar to one in Indiana. It says that if someone breaks the law by harming the environment, they have to pay the state for the damage. The law also makes sure that the same person doesn’t have to pay twice for the same damage. This means that private individuals can’t also ask for money for the same damage. The goal is to make sure that there’s enough money to fix the environment, and that it’s divided up fairly among the people responsible for causing the damage. In a court case in Oklahoma, the state tried to sue a company for polluting the Illinois River basin and causing damage to natural resources. The court dismissed the state’s claim because it didn’t include the Cherokee Nation, whose land was also affected. The court said that the Cherokee Nation has the right to manage its own natural resources and seek damages on its own. The court also said that private claims for natural resource damages are not allowed when the government is involved. The court said that the sports fishers’ argument was too technical and didn’t make sense with the laws and policies. They also said that private parties can’t recover damages for natural resources but can still claim other economic damages. CERCLA defines natural resources as things like land, fish, wildlife, and other resources that are managed or controlled by the government. If hazardous substances are released and harm these resources, the government can sue for damages. However, Florida law allows private parties to sue for damages without proving the cause of the harm, which goes against the stricter federal law. This creates problems for the government when trying to sue for damages under federal natural resource laws. So, there’s a conflict between federal and state laws when it comes to suing for damage to natural resources. This article talks about a previous court decision that said federal law about cleaning up pollution sites is more important than Florida law. The authors think that a recent Florida court decision about who can sue for damage to natural resources goes against the law as well. They believe only the government should be able to sue for this kind of damage, and not private people or companies. Stigma is when the value of a property goes down because people are worried about it being contaminated. This can happen even if the property is not actually contaminated anymore. It’s important to consider this when determining the value of the property. There are laws in place to protect natural resources and give people the right to sue if those resources are damaged. These citations are references to court cases and laws related to environmental protection, specifically the Clean Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). They discuss who can bring a lawsuit for damage to natural resources, such as a municipality needing to be appointed by the governor to do so. They also mention specific sections of laws and court decisions that have addressed these issues. Two lawyers, Sidney Ansbacher and Robert Fingar, wrote an article discussing how federal laws affect state laws regarding environmental cleanup. Ansbacher works in Jacksonville and Fingar works in Tallahassee. Ansbacher has experience in environmental law and Fingar was once the chair of an environmental law section. They both have law degrees. The article talks about different laws and how they may overlap or affect each other. Adam G. Schwartz is a lawyer who works with a law firm. He helps with lawsuits and environmental issues. This article is written on behalf of the Environmental and Land Use Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/strictly-speaking-does-f-s-376-3133-create-duty-to-everybody-everywhere-part-ii/