Florida Statute 768.1325 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter

768.1325 Cardiac Arrest Survival Act; immunity from civil liability.—

(1) This section may be cited as the “Cardiac Arrest Survival Act.”

(2) As used in this section:

(a) “Perceived medical emergency” means circumstances in which the behavior of an individual leads a reasonable person to believe that the individual is experiencing a life-threatening medical condition that requires an immediate medical response regarding the heart or other cardiopulmonary functioning of the individual.

(b) “Automated external defibrillator device” means a lifesaving defibrillator device that:

1. Is commercially distributed in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

2. Is capable of recognizing the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation, and is capable of determining without intervention by the user of the device whether defibrillation should be performed.

3. Upon determining that defibrillation should be performed, is able to deliver an electrical shock to an individual.

(c) “Harm” means damage or loss of any and all types, including, but not limited to, physical, nonphysical, economic, noneconomic, actual, compensatory, consequential, incidental, and punitive damages or losses.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, and except as provided in subsection (4), any person who uses or attempts to use an automated external defibrillator device on a victim of a perceived medical emergency, without objection of the victim of the perceived medical emergency, is immune from civil liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use of such device. In addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, and except as provided in subsection (4), any person who acquired the device and makes it available for use, including, but not limited to, a community association organized under chapter 617, chapter 718, chapter 719, chapter 720, chapter 721, or chapter 723, is immune from such liability, if the harm was not due to the failure of such person to:

(a) Properly maintain and test the device; or

(b) Provide appropriate training in the use of the device to an employee or agent of the acquirer when the employee or agent was the person who used the device on the victim, except that such requirement of training does not apply if:

1. The device is equipped with audible, visual, or written instructions on its use, including any such visual or written instructions posted on or adjacent to the device;

2. The employee or agent was not an employee or agent who would have been reasonably expected to use the device; or

3. The period of time elapsing between the engagement of the person as an employee or agent and the occurrence of the harm, or between the acquisition of the device and the occurrence of the harm in any case in which the device was acquired after engagement of the employee or agent, was not a reasonably sufficient period in which to provide the training.

(4) Immunity under subsection (3) does not apply to a person if:

(a) The harm involved was caused by that person’s willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless disregard or misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the victim who was harmed;

(b) The person is a licensed or certified health professional who used the automated external defibrillator device while acting within the scope of the license or certification of the professional and within the scope of the employment or agency of the professional;

(c) The person is a hospital, clinic, or other entity whose primary purpose is providing health care directly to patients, and the harm was caused by an employee or agent of the entity who used the device while acting within the scope of the employment or agency of the employee or agent;

(d) The person is an acquirer of the device who leased the device to a health care entity, or who otherwise provided the device to such entity for compensation without selling the device to the entity, and the harm was caused by an employee or agent of the entity who used the device while acting within the scope of the employment or agency of the employee or agent; or

(e) The person is the manufacturer of the device.

(5) This section does not establish any cause of action. This section does not require that an automated external defibrillator device be placed at any building or other location or require an acquirer to make available on its premises one or more employees or agents trained in the use of the device.

(6) An insurer may not require an acquirer of an automated external defibrillator device which is a community association organized under chapter 617, chapter 718, chapter 719, chapter 720, chapter 721, or chapter 723 to purchase medical malpractice liability coverage as a condition of issuing any other coverage carried by the association, and an insurer may not exclude damages resulting from the use of an automated external defibrillator device from coverage under a general liability policy issued to an association.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2001-76; s. 3, ch. 2004-345; s. 3, ch. 2004-353; s. 3, ch. 2006-206; s. 2, ch. 2008-101.

F.S. 768.1325 on Google Scholar

F.S. 768.1325 on CourtListener

Amendments to 768.1325

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 768.1325

Total Results: 4 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

La Fitness Int'l, LLC. v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Cited 62 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 1805778

...Fitness's duty of reasonable care required it to have an automatic external defibrillator (AED) on its premises and to use it on the deceased. There is no common law or statutory duty that a business have an AED on its premises. On the contrary, the Florida legislature has adopted the "Cardiac Arrest Survival Act" § 768.1325, Fla....

...s establishments have no common law duty to have an AED on the premises. See Rotolo, 59 Cal. Rptr.3d at 770, Salte, 286 Ill.Dec. 622, 814 N.E.2d at 614-15; Atcovitz; 812 A.2d at 1218; Rutnik, 672 N.Y.S.2d at 451. We find these cases, as well as F.S. § 768.1325, persuasive as we hold that L.A....

Copy

Abel Limones, Sr. v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty., 161 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 2015).

Cited 41 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 182, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 625, 2015 WL 1472236

...The Second District also determined that neither the undertaker’s doctrine3 nor section 1006.165, Florida Statutes, imposed a duty to use an AED on Abel. Id. at 906-07. Finally, after it concluded that Respondent was immune from civil liability under section 768.1325(3), Florida Statutes (2008), the Second District affirmed the decision of the trial court....

...Immunity - 14 - Because we conclude that Respondent owed a common law duty to Abel, we must now consider whether Respondent is immune from suit under sections 1006.165 and 768.1325, Florida Statutes....

...ty and to train “all employees or volunteers who are reasonably expected to use the device” in its application. § 1006.165(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. Further, “[t]he use of [AEDs] by employees and volunteers is covered under [sections] 768.13 and 768.1325,” which generally regulate immunity under Florida’s Good Samaritan Act and the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. § 1006.165(4).7 Subsection (3) of the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act states: 7. Although section 1006.165 references both the Good Samaritan Act, section 768.13, and the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act, section 768.1325, Respondent seeks immunity only under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act....

...In addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, and except as provided in subsection (4), any person who acquired the device and makes it available for use, including, but not limited to, a community organization . . . is immune from such liability . . . . § 768.1325(3), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). There is no immunity for criminal misuse, gross negligence, or similarly egregious misuse of an AED. § 768.1325(4)(a). Under a plain reading of the statute, this subsection creates two classes of parties that may be immune from liability arising from the misuse of AEDs: users (actual or attempted), and acquirers. Users are clearly “immune from civil liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use” of an AED. § 768.1325(3), Fla....

...an AED is actually used or attempted to be used. It is undisputed that no actual or attempted use of an AED occurred in this case until emergency responders arrived. - 16 - Therefore, we hold that Respondent is not entitled to immunity under section 768.1325 and such section has absolutely no application here. Despite the protests of Respondent and its amici, we do not believe that this straightforward reading of the statute defeats the legislative intent....

...to his aid to prevent aggravation of his injury. It is a matter for the jury to determine under the evidence whether Respondent’s actions breached that duty and resulted in the damage that Abel suffered. We further hold Respondent is not entitled to immunity from suit under section 768.1325, Florida Statutes....

Copy

Fleetwood Homes of Florida, Inc. v. Reeves, 833 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31875183

...(2001) (liability for improper construction lien); § 725.06(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001) (prohibition for indemnity for such conduct in construction contracts); § 768.075(1), Fla. Stat. (2001) (duty owed by property owner to intoxicated trespasser); § 768.1325(4)(a), Fla....

Copy

Limones v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty., 111 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 439988, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 1821

...lator. (3) The location of each automated external defibrillator must be registered with a local emergency medical services medical director. (4) The use of automated external defibrillators by employees and volunteers is covered under s. 768.13 and 768.1325....

...ts. The body of section 1006.165 does not set forth requirements regarding the school’s use of the AED it is required to maintain. Instead, subsection (4) provides that the “use” of AEDs in FHSAA high schools is governed by sections 768.13 and 768.1325. We therefore look to these sections to determine whether the School Board had a duty to make available, diagnose the need for, or use an AED in the circumstances of this case. III. Duty Under Sections 768.13 and 768.1325 Section 768.13, Florida Statutes (2008), is known as the “Good Samaritan Act.” § 768.13(1)....

...This immunity extends to both acts and omissions and includes diagnosis. § 768.13(2)(b)2. While this provision requires a person who undertakes a duty to render aid to do so reasonably, this provision does not set forth a duty to render aid. See L.A. Fitness, 980 So.2d at 561 n. 2. Section 768.1325, Florida Statutes (2008), is known as the “Cardiac Arrest Survival Act.” § 768.1325(1). This statute provides immunity from civil liability for those who use or attempt to use an AED and for “any person who acquired the device and makes it available for use.” See § 768.1325(3)....

...the person’s (1) failure to maintain and test the AED or (2) failure to provide any appropriate training in the use of the AED. Id. And there are certain other exceptions to immunity that *908 are not at issue given the facts alleged in this case. § 768.1325(4). As with the immunity provision in section 768.13, section 768.1325 does not create a legal duty to render aid through the use of an AED....

...Athletic Ass’n, 998 So.2d 1155, 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that statute which requires FHSAA to adopt bylaws that require students to pass a medical evaluation prior to participating in high school sports does not create a private cause of action). In fact, section 768.1325(5) expressly declares that it “does not establish any cause of action.” IV. Immunity Under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act As discussed previously, this statute provides immunity from civil liability for “any person who acquired the device and makes it available for use.” § 768.1325(3)....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. Attorney Syfert regularly works with Chapter 768 in the context of negligence and personal injury claims and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.