Curd v. Mosaic: Establishing a Property Right in Fish and Legitimately Assessing Value for Their Destruction

This paper investigates Curd v. Mosaic, a case currently awaiting oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court, and two related issues: 1) property interests in natural resources, specifically fish; and 2) the value of these interests. Part I of this paper provides a brief ecological, economic, and scientific discussion of Curd by focusing on the fish, chemicals, and environment. Part II begins by fishing for answers. First, does a private citizen have a property interest in natural resources, specifically fish? If so, what historical justifications have courts given to permit fisherman a recovery for smaller catches? The section describes historical caselaw regarding private citizen action for the recovery of wild animals, the views of prominent property rights theorists, and then moves on to statutory governmental causes of action. Next, the section describes the “special relationship” between fishermen and catch before suggesting that nuisance law can best tackle the problems posed by Curd. Part III of this paper investigates the valuation of natural resources. The section describes the two main tests utilized to value and remedy the destruction of natural resources in an attempt to determine whether valuation is mere speculation; or whether legitimate processes have been developed to accurately put a price on our natural surroundings. The second part of this section describes the processes that could be used to distribute a plaintiff’s recovery in Curd. Finally, part IV concludes that the Florida Supreme Court should allow the fisherman a case of action to protect their livelihood and the environment. By permitting fisherman to recover, the Court would take some of the burden of environmental protection off the government and instead utilize the threat of private party litigation as a deterrent.