HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS
BILL #: CS/HB 7055 PCB CJS 23-01 Duty of Care Regarding Commercial Motor Vehicles
SPONSOR(S): Judiciary Committee, Civil Justice Subcommittee, Maggard
TIED BILLS: IDEN./SIM. BILLS:
REFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or
BUDGET/POLICY CHIEF
Orig. Comm.: Civil Justice Subcommittee 13 Y, 4 N Jones Jones
1) Judiciary Committee 16 Y, 7 N, As CS Jones Kramer
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the United States Department of
Transportation is a federal agency that regulates the safety of motor vehicles and related equipment. The
NHTSA issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to specify design, construction, performance, and
durability requirements for motor vehicles and related equipment. Such regulations may be periodically
updated.
CS/HB 7055 creates s. 768.0429, F.S., to limit the scope of civil liability for a person who owns or operates, or
leases or rents to another person, a commercial motor vehicle that is involved in an accident. The bill defines
“commercial motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle that:
 Weighs 6,000 pounds or more; and
 Is used in interstate or intrastate commerce to provide services or transport passengers, goods, or
property.
Specifically, the bill provides that in a civil action arising out of an accident involving a commercial motor
vehicle:
 The owner or operator, or person who leases or rents the commercial motor vehicle to another person,
has no obligation or duty to retrofit the vehicle with component parts or equipment, or to select such
parts or equipment to be included on the vehicle, if such parts or equipment were not required by the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable at the time the vehicle was manufactured or sold.
 Any evidence related to the alleged obligation or duty to retrofit is inadmissible.
However, the bill also specifies that it does not shield from liability an owner, lessor, or operator of a
commercial motor vehicle, or a person who rents the vehicle to another person, who fails to comply with a law
or regulation issued after the vehicle was manufactured or sold that would require a recall or retrofit.
The bill is unlikely to have any fiscal impact on state or local governments.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2023.
This docum ent does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill sponsor or House of Representatives .
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC
DATE: 4/11/2023
 FULL ANALYSIS
I. SUBSTANTIVE ANALYSIS
A. EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES:
Background
Tort Law
One of the goals of the civil justice system is to redress tortious conduct, or actions known as “torts.” A
tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. Torts are generally divided into two categories,
as follows:
 An intentional tort, examples of which include an assault, a battery, or a false imprisonment.
 Negligence, which is a tort that is unintentionally committed. To prevail in a negligence lawsuit,
the party seeking the remedy, the “plaintiff,” must demonstrate that the:
o Defendant had a legal duty of care requiring the defendant to conform to a certain
standard of conduct for the protection of others, including the plaintiff, against
unreasonable risks;
o Defendant breached his or her duty of care by failing to conform to the required
standard;
o Defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury; and
o Plaintiff suffered actual damages or losses resulting from such injury.1
Negligence
Duty of Care
The first of the four elements a plaintiff must show to prevail in a negligence action is that the defendant
owed the plaintiff a "duty of care" to do something or refrain from doing something. The existence of a
legal duty is a threshold requirement that, if satisfied, “merely opens the courthouse doors.” 2 Whether a
duty sufficient to support a negligence claim exists is a matter of law 3 determined by the court.4 A duty
may arise from various sources, including:
 Legislative enactments or administrative regulations;
 Judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations;
 Other judicial precedent; and
 The general facts of the case.5
In determining whether a duty arises from the general facts of the case, courts look to whether the
defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a “zone of risk” that posed a general threat of harm to
others—that is, whether there was a likelihood that the defendant’s conduct would result in the type of
injury suffered by the plaintiff.6 Such zone of risk defines the scope of the defendant’s legal duty, which
is typically either to lessen the risk or ensure that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from
the harm the risk poses.7 However, it is not enough that a risk merely exists or that a particular risk is
foreseeable; rather, the defendant’s conduct must create or control the risk before liability may be
imposed.8
1
6 Florida Practice Series s. 1.1; see Barnett v. Dept. of Fin. Serv., 303 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 2020).
2 Kohl v. Kohl, 149 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
3 A matter of law is a matter determined by the court, unlike a matter of fact, which must be determined by the jury. Matters of law
include issues regarding a law’s application or interpretation, issues regarding what the relevant law is, and issues of fac t re s e rve d fo r
judges to resolve. Legal Information Institute, Question of Law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/question_of_law (last visited Apr. 5,
2023); Legal Information Institute, Question of Fact, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Question_of_fact (last visited Apr. 5, 2023).
4 Kohl, 149 So. 3d at 135; Goldb erg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So. 2d 1110.
5 Goldb erg, 899 So. 2d at 1105 (citing Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2003)).
6 Kohl, 149 So. 3d at 135 (citing McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992); Whitt v. Silverman, 788 So. 2d 210 (Fla.
2001)).
7 Kohl, 149 So. 3d at 135; Whitt, 788 So. 2d at 217.
8 Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., 159 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Demelus v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 24 So. 3d
759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)).
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC PAGE: 2
DATE: 4/11/2023
 Breach of the Duty of Care
The second element a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant "breached," or failed to discharge, the
duty of care. Whether a breach occurred is generally a matter of fact for the jury to determine. 9
Causation
The third element a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant's breach of the duty of care "proximately
caused" the plaintiff's injury. Whether proximate causation exists is generally a matter of fact for the jury
to determine.10 Florida follows the “more likely than not” standard in proving causation; thus, the inquiry
for the factfinder is whether the defendant’s negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.11 In
making such a determination, the factfinder must analyze whether the injury was a foreseeable
consequence of the danger created by the defendant’s negligent act or omission. 12 It is not required
that the defendant’s conduct must be the exclusive cause, or even the primary cause, of the plaintiff’s
injury suffered; instead, the plaintiff must only show that the defendant’s conduct substantially caused
the injury.13
Damages
The final element a plaintiff must show to prevail in a negligence action is that the plaintiff suffered
some harm, or "damages." Actual damages, also called compensatory damages, are damages the
plaintiff actually suffered from the injury.14 Juries award compensatory damages to compensate an
injured person for a defendant’s negligent acts.15 Compensatory damages consist of both:
 “Economic damages,” which typically consist of financial losses that are easily quantified, such
as lost wages, the cost to replace damaged property, or the cost of medical treatment; and
 “Non-economic damages,” which typically consist of nonfinancial losses that cannot be easily
quantified, such as pain and suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life.16
In certain limited situations, a court may also award “punitive damages,” the purpose of which is to
punish a defendant for bad behavior and deter future bad conduct, rather than to compensate the
plaintiff for a loss.17
Substance and Procedure
Various provisions within Florida law, including the Florida Evidence Code, specify what types of
evidence and testimony are admissible in court.18 Generally, Florida’s separation of powers principle
teaches that it is the role of the legislature to enact substantive law, and the role of the judiciary to
adopt procedural rules.19 The Florida Evidence Code, for example, contains both procedural and
substantive law. Statutes that contain procedural elements, such as those amending the Evidence
Code, must generally be approved by Supreme Court.20
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
9 Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009).
10 Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2015).
11
Ruiz v. Tenent Hialeah Healthsystem, Inc., 260 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2018).
12 Id. at 981-982.
13 Id. at 982.
14 Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (1876).
15 St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1983).
16 Cf. s. 766.202(8), F.S.
17 See ss. 768.72, 768.725, and 768.73, F.S. (providing standards and requirements for awarding punitive damages).
18 Ch. 90, F.S.
19 See art. II, s. 3, Fla. Const.; art. V, s. 2(a), Fla. Const.; DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219, 1228 (Fla. 2018).
20 See, e.g., In re Florida Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1979); In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, 278 So. 3d 551
(Fla. 2014); Leapai v. Milton, 595 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1992) (“The judiciary and the legislature must work to solve these types of
separation-of-powers problems without encroaching upon each other's functions and recognizing each other's constitutional fu n cti o ns
and duties”).
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC PAGE: 3
DATE: 4/11/2023
 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the United States Department of
Transportation is a federal agency that regulates the safety of motor vehicles and related equipment.21
The NHTSA issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), which are federal regulations to
implement laws from Congress and prevent and reduce vehicle crashes.22 These regulations specify
design, construction, performance, and durability requirements for motor vehicles and related
equipment. Such regulations may be periodically updated. A motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
subject to the FMVSS must, at the time it is manufactured, conform to such FMVSS.23
A manufacturer of motor vehicles or covered motor vehicle equipment must certify that the vehicle or
equipment complies with the minimum requirements established in the FMVSS. 24 Manufacturers may
be liable for recalls and civil penalties if their vehicles or equipment do not meet the FMVSS.25
Effect of Proposed Changes
CS/HB 7055 creates s. 768.0429, F.S., to limit the scope of civil liability for a person who owns or
operates, or leases or rents to another person, a commercial motor vehicle that is involved in an
accident. The bill defines “commercial motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle that:
o Weighs 6,000 pounds or more; and
o Is used in interstate or intrastate commerce to provide services or transport passengers, goods,
or property.
The bill provides that in a civil action arising out of an accident involving a commercial motor vehicle as
defined in the bill, the owner, lessor, operator, or person who rents the commercial motor vehicle to
another person has no obligation or duty of care to retrofit the commercial vehicle with component parts
or equipment, or to select such parts or equipment to be included on the vehicle, if such parts or
equipment were not required by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable at the time the
vehicle was manufactured or sold. The bill also provides that any evidence related to the alleged
obligation or duty to retrofit is inadmissible.
However, the bill also specifies that it does not shield from liability an owner, lessor, or operator of a
commercial motor vehicle, or a person who rents the vehicle to another person, who fails to comply
with a law or regulation issued after the vehicle was manufactured or sold that would require a recall or
retrofit.
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2023.
B. SECTION DIRECTORY:
Section 1: Creates s. 768.0429, F.S., relating to duty of care and admissibility of evidence in
certain motor vehicle accidents.
Section 2: Provides an effective date.
II. FISCAL ANALYSIS & ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT
A. FISCAL IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENT:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
21 See NHTSA, Laws and Regulations, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards | FMVSS | NHTSA (last visited Apr. 5, 2023).
22 Id.; 49 C.F.R. part 571; 49 U.S.C. s. 30115.
23 See NHTSA, New Manufacturers Handbook at 20 (updated Sept. 20, 2022), Outline for New Manufacturer Information (dot.gov) (l a s t
visited Apr. 5, 2023).
24 See id. at 4.
25 See id. at 5, 25.
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC PAGE: 4
DATE: 4/11/2023
 None.
B. FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
1. Revenues:
None.
2. Expenditures:
None.
C. DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON PRIVATE SECTOR:
The bill reduces the likelihood that an owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle, or a person
who leases or rents such vehicles to others, would be liable for damages in a civil lawsuit.
D. FISCAL COMMENTS:
None.
III. COMMENTS
A. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:
1. Applicability of Municipality/County Mandates Provision:
Not applicable. The bill does not appear to require counties or municipalities to spend funds or take
action requiring the expenditures of funds; reduce the authority that counties or municipalities have
to raise revenues in the aggregate; or reduce the percentage of state tax shared with counties or
municipalities.
2. Other:
To ensure the separation of powers, the Legislature has the authority to enact substantive laws, and
the judiciary has the authority to adopt procedural rules. To the extent the bill touches on any
procedural subjects, the Florida Supreme Court may decide to adopt such provisions. 26
B. RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY:
Not applicable.
C. DRAFTING ISSUES OR OTHER COMMENTS:
None.
IV. AMENDMENTS/COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE CHANGES
On April 11, 2023, the Judciary Committee adopted a strike-all amendment and reported the bill favorably, as
amended. The amendment:
 Defined, for purposes of the bill, “commercial motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle that:
o Weighs 6,000 pounds or more; and
o Is used in interstate or intrastate commerce to provide services or transport passengers, goods,
or property.
 Provided that the bill does not shield from liability a person who fails to comply with a law or regulation
issued after the vehicle was manufactured or sold that would require a recall or retrofit.
 Made a technical change to the language about admissibility of evidence.
26 See In re Florida Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369 (1979).
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC PAGE: 5
DATE: 4/11/2023
This analysis is drafted to the committee substitute as passed by the Judiciary Committee.
STORAGE NAME: h7055a.JDC PAGE: 6
DATE: 4/11/2023