The Florida Senate
BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.)
Prepared By: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Commerce and Tourism
BILL: SB 1458
INTRODUCER: Senator Yarborough
SUBJECT: Roller Skating Rink Safety
DATE: March 24, 2023
ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR REFERENCE ACTION
1. Baird McKay CM Pre-meeting
2. JU
3. RC
I. Summary:
SB 1458 creates s. 768.395, F.S., which provides that roller skating rink operators will not be
liable to a roller skater or spectator for any damages or personal injuries resulting from the
inherent risks of roller skating if certain requirements are met by the operator, which include:
signage to be posted on the premises, requiring a roller skating rink supervisor or manager for
every 200 skaters and the maintenance, safety, and lighting of the roller skating rink itself.
The bill does not limit the liability of any roller skating rink operator for acts of gross negligence
by the operator or their employees.
The bill also provides that a roller skater assumes the inherent risks of skating at a roller skating
rink. While skating at a rink, roller skaters must maintain control and awareness, obey signage,
and refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to their own personal injury or
the personal injury of another.
Failure by a roller skating rink operator to perform their specified duties and responsibilities
constitutes negligence, and failure by a roller skater to perform their specified duties and
responsibilities constitutes negligence.
The bill takes effect July 1, 2023.
REVISED: BILL: SB 1458 Page 2
II. Present Situation:
Roller Skating Rinks
There are less than 50 roller skating rinks in Florida that are mostly owned by individual owners
and operators.
1
These small business owners are currently faced with raised costs associated with
real estate prices, insurance premiums, and even obtaining insurance coverage.
2
Currently eleven other states have dedicated roller skating statutes including Alabama, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and
Texas.
Premises Liability
Premises liability refers to the duty of an individual or entity that owns or controls real property
to reasonably operate and maintain such property for the safety of those who enter or remain on
the property. Unlike ordinary negligence, which is based upon active negligence, a premises
liability claim is based upon passive negligence; that is, a premises liability claim stems from the
tortfeasor’s failure to act to prevent harm to the injured party and not from any affirmative
actions of the tortfeasor.
3
Skating rinks are currently susceptible to such premise liability claims. Other common premises
liability claims include slip and fall accidents, dog bites, trip or misstep accidents, and swimming
pool accidents. As to an invitee, a landowner or possessor is liable if he/she/it:
Negligently failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition;
Negligently failed to correct a dangerous condition about which the defendant either knew or
should have known, by the use of reasonable care; or
Negligently failed to warn the claimant of a dangerous condition about which the defendant
had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of claimant, and if so, such negligence
was a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage.
4
A premises liability claim may also involve negligent security allegations, in which a person
injured by a third party’s criminal acts (that is, a third party’s intentional tort) on another’s
property attempts to hold the property owner liable for failing to provide adequate security
measures on the property. To prevail on a negligent security claim, the plaintiff must prove that
the:
Plaintiff was lawfully present on the defendant’s property;
5
1
Florida Roller Skating Rinks, Skating Fitness, https://www.skatingfitness.com/Roller-Locator-Florida.htm (last visited
March 24, 2023).
2
Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach County’s last roller skating rink closing its doors, with years of memories, Palm Beach Post,
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/business/2022/08/18/roller-skating-rink-palm-beach-county-close-under-new-
owner/10333462002/ (last visited March 24, 2023).
3
Nicholson v. Stonybrook Apts., LLC, 154 So.3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
4
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. 401.20 Issues on Plaintiff’s Claim — Premises Liability.
5
The only duty a property owner owes to an undiscovered trespasser is to refrain from causing intentional harm, while the
only duty he or she owes to a known trespasser is to refrain from committing gross negligence or intentional harm and to
warn of known dangers that are not readily observable. Nicholson, 154 So.3d at 492. BILL: SB 1458 Page 3
Defendant had a duty to provide adequate security on the property but breached such duty;
6
Plaintiff was injured because of a third party’s criminal act, which act was reasonably
foreseeable to the defendant and would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach;
7
and
Plaintiff incurred actual damages.
8
Florida Has Addressed Inherently Risky Behavior Before
As skateboarding and inline skating gained in popularity in Florida, citizens called for an
increase in public skate parks and other facilities. Local government officials, however, declined
to create these parks and set-aside areas out of concern for liability exposure. The 1999
Legislature addressed these concerns by providing immunity from liability for governmental
entities that set aside areas for skateboarding, inline skating, and freestyle bicycling.
9
Today, s. 316.0085, F.S., addresses, and considers as inherently risky, the activities of
skateboarding, inline skating, paintball, and freestyle, mountain, and off-road bicycling.
10
According to the statute, a governmental entity, which may include a federal, state, or local
governmental entity, authorizes or permits a person to engage in these inherently risky activities
by posting a sign designating an area for a specific activity.
11
The governmental entity is
generally immune from liability for damages or injuries to a person 17 years of age or older as a
result of participating in an inherently risky activity. However, for a participant who is younger
than 17 years of age, the governmental entity has the benefit of this limited liability only if it
obtains the written consent of a parent of the child.
12
Although existing law provides significant liability protections to governmental entities, a
governmental entity can be held liable for damages or injuries if it:
6
Generally, a property owner has no duty to protect another person from criminal acts committed by third parties on his or
her property, but such a duty may arise where a special relationship exists between the property owner and the victim or
between the property owner and the third party such that the property owner has a duty to control the third party’s conduct.
Special relationships recognized by Florida courts include landlord-tenant, hotel-guest, employer-employee, proprietor-
patron, and school-student; all involve a person who has entered upon the property of another and in so doing lost a measure
of control in providing for his or her own protection. See, Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1983); K.M. ex rel. D.M. v.
Publix Super Markets, Inc., 895 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Gross v. Fam. Servs. Agency, Inc., 716 So.2d 337 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1998); Salerno v. Hart Fin. Corp., 521 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Restatement 2d Torts s. 315; Frederic S.
Zinober, Litigating the Negligent Security Case: Who’s In Control Here?, 44 Stetson L. Rev. 289 (2015).
7
Generally, a negligent person is not liable for the damages suffered by another when some separate force or action is an
intervening cause of the harm, but where the intervening cause is foreseeable, the original negligent actor may still be held
liable. Thus, a negligent security claim’s success often hinges on the foreseeability of the crime committed, as property
owners are not expected to prevent all possible crimes which may occur on their property. Whether or not a crime was
foreseeable is a question of fact, but evidence of foreseeability may include the crime rate in the premises’ immediate area,
whether similar crimes have previously been committed on the premises, and the nature of the property itself (in other words,
is the property of a type that is likely to attract crime). Stevens, 436 So.2d at 34-35; Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.,
386 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1980); Williams v. Office of Sec. & Intelligence, Inc., 509 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
8
Globe Sec. Systems Co. v. Mayor’s Jewelers, Inc., 458 So.2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
9
Chapter 99-133, L.O.F., expressly recognizes “that governmental owners or lessees of property have failed to make
property available for [skateboarding, inline skating, and freestyle bicycling] because of the exposure to liability from
lawsuits and the prohibitive cost of insurance, if insurance can be obtained for such activities.”
10
Section 316.0085(2)(b), F.S.
11
Section 316.0085(2)(a) and (3), F.S.
12
Section 316.0085(3), F.S. BILL: SB 1458 Page 4
Fails to warn of a dangerous condition which a participant cannot reasonably be expected to
notice; or
Commits gross negligence that is the proximate cause of a participant’s injury.
13
Additionally, s. 316.0085, F.S., does not limit the liability of individuals who are negligent while
participating in an inherently dangerous activity. A participant is negligent if he or she fails to:
Act within the limits of his or her ability and the purpose and design of the equipment used;
Remain in control of his or her equipment and himself or herself; or
Refrain from acting in a way that may cause or contribute to death or injury of himself or
herself or others.
14
Assumption of Inherent Risks
A person is ordinarily liable for their torts committed. However, liability can be avoided through
the tort law concept, assumption of risk. Assumption of risk is a concept that can reduce or
eliminate the amount that a plaintiff is entitled to recover.
15
There are two primary ways that
assumption of risk can be established, through informed participation (implied) or through verbal
or written contractual assumption of risk agreements (express).
Where the plaintiff’s conduct is properly characterized as implied assumption of the risk, the
plaintiff’s conduct must be evaluated by the jury under the principles of comparative
negligence.
16
For express assumption of risk to be valid, either by contract or by voluntary
participation in an activity, it must be clear that the plaintiff understood that plaintiff was
assuming the particular conduct by which the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury.
17
A minor ordinarily is liable for personal torts directly committed by the minor that are not
connected with and do not arise out of contracts,
18
and likewise, a mentally incompetent person
is ordinarily responsible for his or her own torts.
19
Waiver of Claims on Behalf of Minor Children
Section 744.301(3), F.S., authorizes natural guardians,
20
on behalf of any of their minor children,
to waive and release, in advance, any claim or cause of action against a commercial activity
13
Section 316.0085(5), F.S.
14
Section 316.0085(7)(b), F.S.
15
Gorday v. Faris, 523 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Hall v. Holton, 330 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Parker v.
Maule Industries, Inc., 321 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), decision approved, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977); Rea v.
Leadership Housing, Inc., 312 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), decision approved, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977).
16
38 Fla. Jur 2d Negligence § 118.
17
38 Fla. Jur 2d Negligence § 110.
18
Fla. Jur. 2d, Family Law § 549.
19
Fla. Jur. 2d, Incompetent and Incapacitated Persons § 47.
20
The parents jointly are the natural guardians of their own children and of their adopted children, during minority, unless the
parents’ parental rights have been terminated. If a child is the subject of any proceeding under chapter 39, the parents may act
as natural guardians under this section unless the court division with jurisdiction over guardianship matters finds that it is not
in the child’s best interests. If one parent dies, the surviving parent remains the sole natural guardian even if he or she
remarries. If the marriage between the parents is dissolved, the natural guardianship belongs to the parent to whom sole
parental responsibility has been granted, or if the parents have been granted shared parental responsibility, both continue as
natural guardians. If the marriage is dissolved and neither parent is given parental responsibility for the child, neither may act BILL: SB 1458 Page 5
provider, or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents, which would accrue to a minor child for
personal injury, including death, and property damage resulting from an inherent risk
21
in the
activity. If a waiver or release complies with all of the requirements under s. 744.301, F.S., there
is a rebuttable presumption that the waiver or release is valid, and a claimant must demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver or release does not comply with s. 744.301,
F.S.
III. Effect of Proposed Changes:
Requirements for Skating Rink Operators
The bill limits liability for skating rink operators unless they fail to meet certain requirements:
Conspicuously post in at least three areas on the premises, the responsibilities of roller
skaters and spectators under subsections 5 and 6;
Maintain the stability and legibility of all signs, symbols, and posted notices;
Have at least one roller skating rink supervisor or manager on duty for every 200 skaters
when the roller skating rink is open for business;
Maintain the skating surface in a reasonably safe condition and clean and inspect the skating
surface before each skating session;
Ensure that all coverings on risers are securely fastened in roller skating rinks with step-up or
step-down skating surfaces;
Install and regularly inspect fire extinguishers;
Inspect emergency lights at least quarterly to ensure the lights are in proper working order;
Keep exit lights and service area lights on when skating surface lights are turned off during a
skating session;
Inspect and maintain in good mechanical condition roller skating equipment that the operator
leases or rents to roller skaters; and
Comply with all applicable state and local safety codes.
Failure to perform these specified duties and responsibilities constitutes negligence. An operator
is liable for personal injuries or damages caused by an act of gross negligence by the operator or
his or her employees.
Requirements for Roller Skater or Spectator
The bill creates an assumption of the risk for roller skaters and spectators at a roller skating rink.
Operators will not be responsible to roller skaters or spectators for the inherent risks associated
as natural guardian of the child. The mother of a child born out of wedlock is the natural guardian of the child and is entitled
to primary residential care and custody of the child unless the court enters an order stating otherwise. See 744.301(1), F.S.
21
The term “inherent risk” means those dangers or conditions, known or unknown, which are characteristic of, intrinsic to, or
an integral part of the activity and which are not eliminated even if the activity provider acts with due care in a reasonably
prudent manner. The term includes, but is not limited to: (1) The failure by the activity provider to warn the natural guardian
or minor child of an inherent risk; and (2) The risk that the minor child or another participant in the activity may act in a
negligent or intentional manner and contribute to the injury or death of the minor child. A participant does not include the
activity provider or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents. See s. 744.301(3)(a), F.S.
BILL: SB 1458 Page 6
with roller skating. Roller skaters and spectators will be deemed to be negligent if they do not
meet the following requirements:
Maintain reasonable control of his or her speed and direction of travel at all time;
Heed all posted signs and warnings;
Maintain a proper awareness to avoid other roller skaters and objects;
Accept responsibility for knowing the range of their own abilities to negotiate the intended
direction of travel while roller skating and to skate within the limits of that ability; and
Refrain from acting in a manner that may cause or contribute to his or her own personal
injury or the personal injury of another person.
IV. Constitutional Issues:
A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions:
None identified.
B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues:
None.
C. Trust Funds Restrictions:
None.
D. State Tax or Fee Increases:
None.
E. Other Constitutional Issues:
None.
V. Fiscal Impact Statement:
A. Tax/Fee Issues:
None.
B. Private Sector Impact:
This bill could potentially limit lawsuits against roller skating rinks.
C. Government Sector Impact:
None.
VI. Technical Deficiencies:
Line 69 of the bill uses the word “as” when it likely is intending to use the word “at.” BILL: SB 1458 Page 7
VII. Related Issues:
None.
VIII. Statutes Affected:
This bill creates section 768.395 of the Florida Statutes.
IX. Additional Information:
A. Committee Substitute – Statement of Changes:
(Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.)
None.
B. Amendments:
None.
This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.