Burley v. The Village South, Inc., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D753 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 2, 2025):

The decedent had been involuntarily committed to the defendant facility, and addiction treatment center. The plaintiff alleged that the facility owed a legal duty pursuant to statute and the facility’s own policies and procedures to refer the decedent to an appropriate inpatient treatment center and to arrange for post-discharge management of his medication to treat his opioid addiction.

The facility successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting it owed no duty to someone who overdosed 48 days after discharge, since the decedent was not in the custody and control of the defendant.

The appellate court agreed with the plaintiff that it was not the “act” of discharge, but rather the “manner” of discharge that triggered the duty. The court found that there was a source of duty both from the legislative enactments/administrative regulations applicable to a service provider of substance abuse services, as well as one stemming from the general facts (even though there is generally no duty owed to someone outside of an entity’s custody and control as was the case here, it was the facility’s actions before the decedent left that gave rise to the duty), and because there were genuine disputed issues of material fact, the trial court improperly entered summary judgment.