11.2 House Bill 837 and Categories of Civil Liability in Florida

1. Florida Tort Reform: House Bill 837 (HB 837)

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 837 (Civil Remedies), representing the most extensive overhaul of Florida casualty litigation in fifty years. Claims adjusters operating in Florida must master two foundational statutory changes introduced by HB 837.

Modified Comparative Negligence with a 51% Bar (F.S. § 768.81)

For five decades prior to March 24, 2023, Florida operated under a pure comparative fault system established in the landmark case Hoffman v. Jones (1973). Under pure comparative negligence, an injured claimant could recover damages from a negligent defendant regardless of how great the claimant's own fault was—even if the claimant was 99% responsible (recovering 1% of their damages).

HB 837 eliminated pure comparative fault for the vast majority of negligence actions, amending Florida Statutes § 768.81 to institute a modified comparative negligence system with a 51% bar:

• Fault ≤ 50%: If the plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, the plaintiff recovers damages, but the total compensatory award is reduced by their percentage of fault.
• Fault > 50% (51% to 100%): If the plaintiff is found to be greater than 50% at fault (51% or higher), the plaintiff is completely barred from recovering any damages whatsoever.

Exam Trap: The Medical Malpractice Exception!

Licensing examinations frequently test whether modified comparative negligence applies to all personal injury lawsuits in Florida. It does not. The 51% bar lives in F.S. § 768.81(6), and that subsection ends with an express carve-out: it "does not apply to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence pursuant to chapter 766." Medical malpractice claims in Florida remain under the traditional pure comparative negligence standard, where a plaintiff who is 60% or 80% at fault can still recover their remaining proportionate share of damages.

Comparative Fault Recovery Scenarios ($100,000 Total Damages Award)

Reduction of Negligence Statute of Limitations (F.S. § 95.11)

HB 837 dramatically shortened the filing deadline for tort claims in Florida. Under amended Florida Statutes § 95.11(4)(a), the statute of limitations for an action founded on general negligence was reduced from four (4) years to two (2) years for all causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023.

• Pre-HB 837 (Accrual before March 24, 2023): 4-year statute of limitations.
• Post-HB 837 (Accrual on or after March 24, 2023): 2-year statute of limitations.
• Comparative Note: This 2-year limitation period now aligns general negligence with Florida's longstanding 2-year statute of limitations for wrongful death and medical malpractice. In contrast, actions founded on a written contract remain subject to a 5-year limitation period, and oral contracts are subject to 4 years under F.S. § 95.11.

---

2. Categories of Civil Liability in Florida

Florida tort law recognizes three distinct tiers of civil liability that determine whether fault must be proved and whether liability can be transferred.

1. Strict (Absolute) Liability

Strict liability imposes legal responsibility for damages without requiring proof of negligence, carelessness, or wrongful intent. The plaintiff must only prove that the activity occurred or the condition existed, and that it proximately caused the damages. Florida recognizes strict liability in three primary domains:

• Ultrahazardous / Abnormally Dangerous Activities: High-risk enterprises that carry an inherent risk of grave harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of utmost care. Examples: commercial blasting and demolition using dynamite, crop dusting with hazardous aerial chemicals, and storage or transportation of bulk industrial explosives.
• Dangerous Animals: Harboring wild, non-indigenous animals (bears, venomous snakes, big cats). In Florida, dog owners are also subject to statutory strict liability for dog bite injuries under F.S. § 767.04, regardless of the dog's prior viciousness, though the owner's liability can be reduced by comparative negligence.
• Strict Products Liability: Commercial manufacturers, distributors, and retail sellers are strictly liable for injuries caused by a product sold in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user. Defects are classified as design defects, manufacturing defects, or inadequate warnings/failure to warn.

2. Vicarious Liability & Respondeat Superior

Vicarious liability is indirect legal responsibility imposed on one person or entity for the negligent acts of another, arising out of a recognized legal relationship:

• Respondeat Superior (Master-Servant): An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee while acting within the course and scope of employment. If an employee causes an auto accident while running a direct commercial errand for an employer, the employer's commercial auto policy responds. If the employee departs on a major personal detour ("frolic"), vicarious liability terminates.
• Independent Contractors: As a general rule, a principal is not vicariously liable for the torts of an independent contractor, unless the work involves non-delegable statutory duties or inherently dangerous operations.

3. Florida's Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine

Florida holds a unique, nationwide position regarding motor vehicle owner liability. Under Florida's common law Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine—first established by the Florida Supreme Court in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson (1920)—a motor vehicle is legally classified as an inherently dangerous instrument.

Consequently, an owner who voluntarily entrusts a motor vehicle to another driver (known as a permissive user) is strictly vicariously liable for any bodily injury or property damage caused by that driver's negligent operation. There is no requirement to prove negligent entrustment; the mere act of granting consent to operate the vehicle triggers liability.

Exam Trap: Statutory Financial Responsibility Limits (F.S. § 324.021)

While the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine imposes vicarious liability, the Florida Legislature enacted statutory caps to protect individual vehicle owners who loan their cars to friends or family:

• Under F.S. § 324.021(9)(b), an individual owner's vicarious liability is capped at $100,000 per person / $300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, and $50,000 for property damage, provided the vehicle is operated by a permissive user. If the permissive user is uninsured or has insurance with limits less than $500,000 combined, the owner is liable for up to an additional $500,000 in economic damages.
• Commercial Rental Car Exception: Under the federal Graves Amendment (49 U.S.C. § 30106), commercial car rental and leasing agencies are completely shielded from vicarious liability under state dangerous instrumentality laws, provided there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the rental agency.

---