D.H. Ex Rel. R.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc.
217 So. 3d 1072
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Twin children born Sept 12, 2005; mother was developmentally disabled and received in‑home services from Adept and B.E.A.R.R.
- On April 11, 2006 the twins were removed from mother’s custody and dependency proceedings alleged abuse/neglect; a guardian ad litem was appointed and grandparents later cared for the twins.
- Grandparents became permanent guardians on April 13, 2007 and sued on behalf of the twins for negligence on Nov 22, 2010 alleging injuries from neglect while in mother’s care.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing the four‑year negligence statute of limitations (§ 95.11(3)(a)) barred the suit because claims accrued in April/May 2006.
- Trial court entered final summary judgment for defendants; appellate court reviewed accrual and tolling issues and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does an ordinary negligence cause of action by minors accrue? | Accrual is delayed until an adult (parent/guardian/next friend) knows or should know of the injury and its cause. | Accrual follows §95.031(1): the cause accrues when the last element (legally cognizable injury) occurs; no delayed‑discovery for ordinary negligence. | Held: Accrual occurs when last element (injury) occurs; delayed discovery doctrine not available for ordinary negligence (per Davis). |
| Could grandparents sue as "next friends" before becoming guardians? | Grandparents lacked capacity until appointed permanent guardians (Apr 2007). | Any adult of reasonable judgment/integrity with no conflict can sue as next friend; grandparents met that standard and could sue earlier. | Held: Grandparents had authority to sue as next friends and no factual dispute on their capacity or lack of conflict. |
| Did the statute of limitations toll under §95.051(1)(h) while minors had a guardian ad litem? | Tolling should apply because no parent/guardian capable of protecting minors’ civil claims and guardian ad litem was unaware/ineffective. | Tolling does not apply when a guardian ad litem exists (unless that guardian has adverse interests or is adjudicated incapacitated). | Held: Tolling did not apply because a guardian ad litem existed and neither adverse interest nor adjudicated incapacity was shown; mere lack of knowledge by the GAL is not a tolling trigger. |
| Result on timeliness of complaint | N/A (remedy sought) | Claims accrued by April/May 2006 making Nov 2010 suit untimely absent tolling. | Held: Claims accrued by at least May 19, 2006 and no applicable tolling; summary judgment affirmed and related appeal dismissed as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monahan, 832 So.2d 708 (Fla. 2002) (delayed‑discovery doctrine applies only where legislature has provided for it)
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (discussion of accrual and discovery principles prior to Davis)
- S.A.P. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 704 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (pre‑Davis decision applying a "knew or should know" accrual rule for minors)
- Drake v. Island Cmty. Church, Inc., 462 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (pre‑Davis authority on accrual tied to adult capable of suing)
- Kelly v. Lodwick, 82 So.3d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (negligence accrues when damages/legally cognizable injury is established)
- N.G. v. Arvida Corp., 630 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (minor’s negligence claim accrues on last date of actionable harm)