Cases

After being attacked by an unknown person at a bus stop, the plaintiff sued the county for failing to have security at or near the stop. The county had contracted with a company to provide such services to its bus stops. The trial court denied the county’s motion for summary judgment, but the district court quashed that decision and granted the motion. It held that the county did not have a duty to provide security at bus stops and that the county had sovereign immunity as to crimes such as this when no special duty exists. It also held the county’s decision to not assign security to the bus stop was a discretionary duty to which sovereign immunity applied.

A deputy sheriff obtained a search warrant for the home of a suspected drug dealer. At the time the deputy sheriff arrived at the suspect’s home, the plaintiff was there picking up her mother. The plaintiff’s mother was babysitting the children in the house, and the plaintiff had no connections to the suspect. The suspect and deputy sheriff exchanged gun fire when the sheriff came to the door, and one of the deputy sheriff’s bullets hit the plaintiff in the hand. The plaintiff brought suit against the sheriff, arguing that he had a duty to exercise reasonable care and that he had breached that duty. The trial court dismissed this suit, ruling that the deputy sheriff had a duty to the public in general and not specifically to the plaintiff. The district court reversed this dismissal. It held that a special relationship existed in this case between the deputy sheriff and plaintiff because the deputy sheriff created a “foreseeable zone of risk” in the house when he executed the warrant. The deputy sheriff also argued that he was entitled to sovereign immunity protection since he has discretionary power regarding how to execute the warrant. The district court did not specifically rule on this issue, but it noted that only “planning level functions,” or those that require basic policy decisions, are protected in this manner.

The district court reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of DCF. Two families sued the agency after a substance abuse counselor who it licensed (but did not employ or refer) committed misconduct in treating their children. The district court held that DCF’s statutory duty to license and monitor substance abuse counselors did not create a duty of care in tort to individual members of the public. Rather, the department was held to have a general regulatory duty to the public, for which no tort duty exists. The Court examined case law that came to seemingly opposite results, such as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Yamuni, 529 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1988). The district court concluded that the department in that case had a “direct relationship” with the victim that was not present in this case, thus making the cases distinguishable.

Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against sheriff alleging that decedent died as result of negligent actions of deputies who responded to a 911 call to conduct a well-being check at decedent's home several days before she died. The deputies found the decedent totally unresponsive, giving rise to the claim that they negligently increased risk of harm to decedent by failing to summon an ambulance. The court held that it was error to dismiss complaint on ground that defendant did not owe decedent a duty of care. Having undertaken to respond to 911 call and complete a safety check the sheriff owed decedent a common-law duty of care. Sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiff’s action against sheriff. The Deputies were performing an operational-level function, which involved the implementation of a preexisting policy or program, the established 911 system, and this operational conduct did not involve the exercise of any type of quasi-legislative discretion. Plaintiff’s complaint stated valid negligence-based wrongful death cause of action, which is not barred by doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The city of Delray Beach sought review of a judgment awarding damages to a pedestrian due to an attack on her by two loose dogs. The pedestrian was attacked and severely injured by two large dogs when they escaped from the city resident's fenced yard. The city had an ordinance which provided for impoundment of dogs found running at large. It was noted that the city's animal control officer had responded to a call months before the subject incident indicating that the same dogs were loose, but rather than impound them, she put them back into their fenced yard because she believed that the dogs were friendly. Similarly, two calls to police regarding attacks and/or bites by the dogs did not result in impoundment of the dogs, and there was no impoundment following other incidents reported to animal control. On appeal, the court disagreed with the trial court's resolution. It noted that the decisions made by the police and the animal control officer regarding whether or not to impound the dogs were discretionary and that such actions were within the city's immunity from liability.

An indigent prisoner sued the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) and a corrections officer (CO), alleging the CO withheld blankets, bed sheets, and clean clothing from him for four and a half months, causing him injury and illness. The complaint alleged the CO acted in bad faith. Therefore, sovereign immunity barred the prisoner's claim against DOC because under § 768.28(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005), the State Florida or its subdivisions were immune from tort liability for the acts or omissions of an officer, employee, or agent committed in bad faith. The complaint alleged, in effect, that the CO acted outside the scope of his employment--in the sense of not exercising power lawfully vested in him--and was guilty of an unlawful usurpation of power the officer did not rightfully possess. The complaint's allegation that the CO wantonly or maliciously breached a duty of reasonable care posing an unreasonable risk of--and actually causing--physical harm was sufficient to withstand dismissal of the allegations brought solely against the CO.