Alderman v. Bradford Cnty.

• Decision Date: 08 March 2023
• Docket Number: 1D22-2645
• Parties: Romulous Alderman, Appellant, v. Bradford County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

1

Romulous Alderman, Appellant, v. Bradford County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D22-2645

Florida Court of Appeals, First District

March 8, 2023

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. George Wright, Judge.

John D. Middleton of Middleton & Middleton, P.A., Melrose, for Appellant.

Sheryl G. Sutphen of Roper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Romulous Alderman, appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Bradford County, on his negligent misrepresentation claim and argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Appellee owed him no duty of care to convey accurate information and that sovereign immunity barred his claim. Finding no merit in Appellant's duty argument, we affirm the final summary judgment. See City of Dunedin v. Pirate's Treasure, Inc., 255 So.3d 902, 903-05 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that the appellant owed no duty to convey accurate information to the appellee concerning whether its site plan complied with the appellant's development code); see also City of Sweetwater v. Pichardo,

2

332 So.3d 20, 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (noting that Florida courts have been disinclined to find municipalities and other sovereign entities liable for the preparation, maintenance, and active dissemination of inaccurate information and holding that the city's mayor owed no duty to provide the appellee accurate information regarding his employ with the city); Florez v. Broward Sheriff's Off., 270 So.3d 417, 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("[I]t is well established that the government does not owe individual citizens a common law duty to convey accurate information or maintain accurate records."); Storm v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 866 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("[T]he government owes no duty to individual members of the public for giving out accurate information . . . ."). Because no duty of care was owed to Appellant, we need not address the issue of sovereign immunity. See Pollock v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Patrol, 882 So.2d 928, 932-33 (Fla. 2004) ("If no duty of care is owed with respect to alleged negligent conduct, then there is no governmental liability, and the question of whether the sovereign should be immune from suit need not be reached.").

Affirmed.

Lewis, Roberts, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.