June 2016 - Parks & Recreation - 35

summoning the Emergency Medical
Technicians (EMT), the common
law would not require any further
action or treatment, including CPR
or AED use for a cardiac emergency. To avoid negligence liability, once
help has been summoned, one must
simply avoid any conduct or " treatment " that would aggravate an injury
during a cardiac emergency.
In the case described herein, this
traditional common-law principle
was superseded by a state law that
required public schools participating in interscholastic sports to acquire and provide AED training.
Generally, courts will narrowly
construe and limit the scope and
applicability of any statute that alters traditional common-law principles. In other words, a statute
that required AED acquisition and
training for public schools would
not be more broadly construed by
a court to include similar situations
or public entities like public parks
and recreation. On the contrary,
courts will generally assume that
the legislature would have specified
and included additional entities
in the expressed language of the
statute if the legislative intent was
indeed to require AED acquisition
and training beyond public schools
involved in interscholastic sports.
Accordingly, in the absence of
expressed statutory language to
the contrary, one would expect
the traditional common-law principle would remain in effect in the
event of a cardiac emergency, i.e.,
no duty beyond prompt summoning of competent medical attention
(calling 911). Similarly, in the absence of expressed statutory language to the contrary, it is unlikely that reasonable care under the
circumstances would necessarily
	

require AED use and availability
in public parks and recreation programs to avoid negligence liability
in the event of a cardiac emergency.
In addition, the availability of
various forms of limited governmental immunity for public park
and recreation agencies in many jurisdictions further limits negligence
liability exposure in the event of a
cardiac emergency. Further, to en-

The question,
however, is whether
the failure to acquire
or utilize available
AED technolgoy will
necessarily provide a
basis for negligence
liability.
courage AED use without fear of
liability, many jurisdictions also
provide limited immunity statutes
for individuals who attempt to utilize this life-saving technology.
At some point in time, perhaps
in the not-too-distant future, AED
use may become so ubiquitous
that an AED would be used by
any reasonable person under the
circumstances. If so, failure to do
so might provide a basis for negligence liability under such circumstances. However, in light of limited governmental immunity laws
and AED immunity laws available
in many jurisdictions, liability will
remain an unlikely exception under
most circumstances. Similarly, any
future legislation would more likely

increase immunity, rather than increase AED liability exposure.
Available AED Not Used
In the case of Limones v. School District of Lee County, 161 So. 3d 384;
2015 Fla. LEXIS 625 (4/2/2015),
15-year-old Abel Limones, Jr.,
suddenly collapsed during a high
school soccer game. As described
below, the state supreme court determined that a jury should consider what might be construed as
reasonable care under the circumstances during this particular cardiac emergency, including use of an
AED required by law.
The incident occurred at approximately 7:40 p.m. on November
13, 2008. There was no evidence
to suggest that Abel collapsed due
to a collision with another player.
The event involved a soccer game
between East Lee County High
School, Abel's school, and Riverdale High School, the host school.
Both schools belong to the Lee
County School District in Florida.
When Abel was unable to rise,
Thomas Busatta, the coach for East
Lee County High School, immediately ran onto the field to check his

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | J U N E 2 0 1 6 |

Parks & Recreation

33
June 2016 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2016 - Parks & Recreation
