Florez v. Broward Sheriff's Office, No. 4D18-1189

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: Damoorgian, J.
• Citation: 270 So.3d 417
• Decision Date: 24 April 2019
• Docket Number: No. 4D18-1189
• Parties: German FLOREZ, Appellant, v. BROWARD SHERIFF'S OFFICE and Howard Forman, in his official capacity as Clerk of Courts for Broward County, Appellees.

270 So.3d 417

German FLOREZ, Appellant,
v.
BROWARD SHERIFF'S OFFICE and Howard Forman, in his official capacity as Clerk of Courts for Broward County, Appellees.

No. 4D18-1189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 24, 2019]

Ryan C. Tyler, Mario R. Giommoni and Kimberly L. Boldt of Boldt Law Firm, Boca Raton, and Adam T. Dougherty of Dougherty Law Firm, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Alexis Fields of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Damoorgian, J.

Appellant, German Florez, sued the Broward Sheriff's Office ("BSO") for negligence and false arrest after BSO arrested and detained Appellant for ten days based on a previously executed warrant. In his complaint, Appellant alleged that although he was initially served with the warrant by BSO while either in court or inmate housing, BSO failed to follow its own protocol and, as a result, erroneously entered the executed warrant as active in its system. The court dismissed Appellant's lawsuit with prejudice, citing to case law establishing BSO did not owe Appellant a duty to ensure that the warrant was properly recorded in its system. We agree that BSO lacked such a duty and, therefore, Appellant could not state a cause of action for negligence. However, we do not agree that this lack of duty precluded Appellant from alleging a cause of action for the intentional tort of false arrest and, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings.

270 So.3d 420

Analysis

As Appellant's lawsuit was against a governmental agency, our analysis must necessarily begin with an overview of governmental tort liability. Generally speaking, the sovereign is immune for tort liability unless such immunity is expressly waived. Town of Gulf Stream v. Palm Beach Cty. , 206 So.3d 721, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ("Sovereign immunity protects the sovereign from being sued without its consent."). To that end, "[t]he State of Florida has waived sovereign immunity in tort actions for any act for which a private person under similar circumstances would be held liable." Henderson v. Bowden , 737 So.2d 532, 534–35 (Fla. 1999) (citing Art. X, § 13, Fla. Const.; § 768.28 Fla. Stat. (1995) ). However, before considering whether sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit, courts must first determine if there is tort liability to be immune from. See Wallace v. Dean , 3 So.3d 1035, 1044–45 (Fla. 2009) ; Pollock v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Patrol , 882 So.2d 928, 932 (Fla. 2004).

Negligence

In order to establish that a defendant is liable for the tort of negligence, the claimant must establish that the defendant owed it a duty of care, which it breached, thereby causing the claimant harm. Williams v. Davis , 974 So.2d 1052, 1056 (Fla. 2007). The government's duties for purposes of negligence are dictated by the common law and statute. Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n v. City of Hialeah , 468 So.2d 912, 917 (Fla. 1985) ("[F]or there to be governmental tort liability, there must be either an underlying common law or statutory duty of care with respect to the alleged negligent conduct."). Further, "[t]he responsibility to enforce the laws for the good of the public cannot engender a duty to act with care toward any one individual, unless an official assumes a special duty with regard to that person." Pollock , 882 So.2d at 935.

With these parameters in mind, it is well established that the government does not owe individual citizens a common law duty to convey accurate information or maintain accurate records. Glenney v. Forman , 936 So.2d 660, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting that "this court has not recognized a duty of governmental officials to maintain records or issue paperwork for the benefit of an individual or particular group of individuals"); City of Dunedin v. Pirate's Treasure, Inc. , 255 So.3d 902, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that a city did not "owe a duty to convey accurate information"). Therefore, absent the government's assumption of a special duty, the government's failure to maintain accurate records cannot form the basis of a negligence suit by a person affected by erroneous record keeping. Id. This is true even if the agency did not follow its own procedures. Pollock , 882 So.2d at 936–37.

For example, in the factually similar Lovett v. Forman , 883 So.2d 319, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), a defendant sued both the clerk of court and the sheriff's office in negligence after the clerk failed to make a computer entry which would have shown a warrant for the defendant's arrest was withdrawn. Based on the clerk's negligent record keeping, the defendant was wrongfully arrested and incarcerated for two months. Id. On appeal, this Court held that the defendant could not maintain a cause of action against the clerk or sheriff based on the clerk's error because the maintenance of records is a function undertaken by the government for the public generally and does not create a special duty. Id. at 320–21 ; see also Moore v. Dep't of Corr. , 833 So.2d 822, 823–24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding no special duty owed which would permit recovery against government where individual was wrongfully arrested by another

270 So.3d 421

agency because...