Padgett v. School Bd. of Escambia County
| Decision Date | 18 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. UU-234,UU-234 |
| Citation | 395 So.2d 584 |
| Parties | Margaret Joann PADGETT et al., Appellants, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, Florida, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. H. F. Wiltshire and James M. Wilson of Harrell, Wiltshire, Stone & Swearingen, Pensacola, for appellants.
G. Miles Davis of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellees.
This appeal is taken from an order dismissing a third amended complaint with prejudice on the ground that the appellants failed to allege any duty owed them by appellee, The School Board of Escambia County. This action was brought by Margaret Joann Padgett on behalf of her minor son, David Lee Huddleson (appellants), to recover damages for serious injuries allegedly caused by defendants that Huddleson incurred while he was crossing a street at or near a school crossing in Escambia County.
We reverse the order only as to those allegations concerning the principal's negligent operation of or failure to operate the warning signals at the school crossing, as those allegations adequately allege a duty. The remaining allegations which relate to activities not voluntarily assumed by the principal are not actionable.
The third amended complaint alleged that the School Board, through the acts of its principal, had voluntarily undertaken to operate flashing operating lights at the school crossing. For purposes of a motion to dismiss the allegations of a complaint are taken to be true. It is also axiomatic that the law imposes an obligation on everyone who attempts to do anything, even gratuitously, for another to exercise some degree of care and skill in the performance of what he has undertaken. Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893 (1932); Fla.Jur., Negligence, § 13. See also, Shealor v. Ruud, 221 So.2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), which held that once a city had elected to install a traffic warning system, it had assumed a duty to operate the system properly.
It cannot be determined from the face of the complaint, or as a matter of law, that the principal was not acting within the scope of his employment by his decision to operate the warning lights. There does not appear to be any legal authority precluding agents of the school board from operating traffic control lights. On the contrary, the school board has the authority to operate school crossing lights if it chooses to do so. See Section 232.25, Florida Statutes (1975). 1 Moreover, Section 316.184, Florida Statutes (1975), which places the duty of installing and maintaining school traffic control devices upon the Department of Transportation and local government authorities, in no way preempts a school board from operating school traffic control devices. And finally, although the principal, as the School Board argues, may have presumptively been without authority to operate the light since the appellants did not allege in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. By and Through Motorcity of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Southeast Bank, N.A.
...exercise reasonable care"); Kaufman v. A-1 Bus Lines, Inc., 416 So.2d 863 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1982) (same); Padgett v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1981) The only Florida cases which have squarely addressed the question of whether a duty is to be inferred from ac......
-
Wallace v. Dean
...(relying upon Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Kropff, 491 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and Padgett v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)). As we explained long ago in Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 734 (Fla.1960), and subsequently reaff......
-
Rupp v. Bryant
...out this duty of the school is actionable. See Ankers v. District School Board, 406 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Padgett v. School Board, 395 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The genesis of this supervisory duty is based on the school employee standing partially in place of the student's pare......
-
Brewer v. Murray
...virtue of the fact that the school, rather than the parent, has assumed physical custody of the child); Padgett v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584 (Fla.App. 1st Dist.1981). See also Dunn v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 367, 30 Kan.App.2d 215, 40 P.3d 315 (2002); Jefferson County Sch. D......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...436 So.2d 213, 218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied , 449 So.2d 264 (Fla. 1984). 4. Padgett v. School Board of Escambia County , 395 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 5. Fruehauf Corporation v. Aetna Insurance Company , 336 So.2d 457, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). LEGAL THEORIES & DEF......