Davis v. Watson
| Decision Date | 31 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1664,74--1664 |
| Citation | 318 So.2d 169 |
| Parties | J. K. DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. Raymond Anthony WATSON and the Travelers Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Thomas M. Beason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellants.
Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee-Raymond Anthony Watson.
Appellee Watson recovered a judgment against appellants Davis and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, arising out of a gunshot wound inflicted upon said appellee by appellant Davis, a wildlife officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Initially, Watson sued only Davis. However, during the pendency of the suit the Commission, by and through the Attorney General, moved to intervene as a defendant. After an order was entered authorizing intervention appellee Watson filed an amended complaint naming Davis and the Commission as defendants. The Commission answered and affirmatively asserted immunity except to the extent of applicable liability insurance, as provided in § 455.06, F.S.1973. On January 10, 1972, the Commission moved the court to limit its liability to the extent of applicable liability insurance coverage. This motion was denied as being premature. Prior to trial the court determined the Commission was not covered by liability insurance for the incident involved in this case. (Watson has not directed a cross appeal at this determination.) Verdict and judgment were ultimately returned against both appellants.
We have reviewed the record with appellant's assigned errors in mind and find it free from error except as to the entry of judgment against the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. In concluding that judgment should not have been entered against the Commission, we have given serious consideration to Watson's contention that the Commission waived its immunity as an agency of the state by intervening in the suit.
Least importantly, we do not believe there was any express or implied waiver of immunity by the Commission. It consistently maintained in the pleadings that its liability was limited to the extent of liability insurance coverage as provided in § 455.06, F.S.1973. More importantly, even if the Commission had purported to waive its immunity as an agency of the state, it was powerless to do so. Article 10, Sec. 13 of the Florida Constitution, West's F.S.A., provides that the sovereign immunity of the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rupp v. Bryant
... ... See, e.g., Spillman v. Beauchamp, 362 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.1962) (officers and employees of a state department personally liable for negligence); Davis v. Little, 362 So.2d 642 (Miss.1978) (official immunity does not protect public officer for negligent driving in scope of duties as non-discretionary ... See Davis v. Watson, 318 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976). On the other hand, Rupp and Stasco rely on equally suspect cases. They ... ...
-
Tague v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
...of the state, it was powerless to do so." Davis v. Watson, 318 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 1975) (citing Fla. Const. art. 10, § 13). In Davis, the court noted that the Florida Constitution "provides that the sovereign immunity of the state may be waived by general law." 318 So.2d at 1......
-
District School Bd. of Lake County v. Talmadge
...of the waiver statute, of course, Florida's public employees had been liable for their tortious acts. See, e. g., Davis v. Watson, 318 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 16 (Fla.1976). Consequently, section 768.28 led to the coexistence of both governmental and employee ......
-
Erwine v. Gamble, Pownal & Gilroy, Architects and Engineers, 75-917
...it abundantly clear that the complaint was properly dismissed against all of the state related defendants. See also Davis v. Watson, 318 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The judgment to the extent that it dismisses the complaint against the architects is reversed; in all other respects it is ......