Garden v. Frier
Decision Date | 02 July 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 78156,78156 |
Citation | 602 So.2d 1273 |
Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly S381 Richard GARDEN, et ux., Petitioners v. J. Sherman FRIER, etc., Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Martin S. Page, Lake City, for petitioners.
William R. Slaughter, II of Slaughter and Slaughter, Live Oak, for respondents.
We have for review Garden v. Frier, 580 So.2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), which certified the following question of great public importance:
For the purposes of [the] professional malpractice statute is a land surveyor a professional?
Id. at 875. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
Land surveyor J. Sherman Frier allegedly performed a negligent land survey for his clients, Richard and Dorothy Garden. The Gardens sued for malpractice slightly more than two years after discovering the error. In response, Frier raised as an affirmative defense the two-year statute of limitation for "professional" malpractice. Sec. 95.11(4), Fla.Stat. (1989). The trial court agreed that the two-year statute applied. Expressing some reservations, the district court affirmed.
The sole issue presented on review is whether land surveyors may avail themselves of the statute's protections. In other words, are they "professionals" for purposes of the statute of limitations. If they are not, then the statute is inapplicable by its own terms. 1
The question presented here is not new. When we last addressed this question in Pierce v. AALL Insurance Co., 531 So.2d 84 (Fla.1988), we noted that the legislature with express knowledge of its membership had neglected to define the term "professional" for purposes of the professional malpractice statute. Indeed, one legislator told other members that the question was being left for the judiciary to decide because a precise definition might hurt some people's feelings. Id. at 86. We then urged the legislature to reconsider this matter and adopt a precise definition. Unfortunately, the legislature has declined to provide the necessary definition.
In light of the confusion that has arisen since Pierce, our first-blush inclination was to strike the statute on grounds of vagueness, which effectively would eliminate the considerable protections the statute affords to all professionals in Florida. On further reflection, we have decided that this action is foreclosed by our earlier opinion in Pierce, where we stated:
[I]f, under the laws and administrative rules of this state a person can only be licensed to practice an occupation upon completion of a four-year college degree in that field, then that occupation is a profession.
Pierce, 531 So.2d at 87. Were we to recede from Pierce entirely and declare the statute unenforceable on vagueness grounds, we believe that serious confusion would result. Moreover, it is clear that the legislature intended for some occupations to receive the benefits of the statute. There simply is no indication which occupations these might be.
Accordingly, we continue to adhere to the basic definition adopted in Pierce and quoted above, with modification discussed more fully below. This definition will remain in force until such time as the legislature provides more complete guidance on this subject.
In so stating, however, we acknowledge that elsewhere in Pierce we created confusion by suggesting that the equivalent of a four-year college degree would suffice as a minimum licensing requirement and by suggesting that the four-year degree must be in a field relevant to the licensed vocation. Id. at 88. Other similar problems have been caused by Pierce 's failure to consider a number of special situations that can arise in professional malpractice actions. We have accepted jurisdiction to clarify the definition set forth in Pierce.
Our intent in Pierce was to establish a bright-line test based on the minimum four-year-degree criterion, to the extent this is possible. Unfortunately, the suggestion that the equivalent of a four-year degree would suffice did not serve this end; and we now recede from this language. 2 Too much imprecision and variation is created by allowing courts to second-guess what does or does not constitute the equivalent of a college degree.
Accordingly, in harmony with the central thrust of Pierce, we hold that a "profession" is any vocation requiring at a minimum a four-year college degree before licensing is possible in Florida. There can be no equivalency exception. There also is no requirement that the four-year degree itself be in a field of study specifically related to the vocation in question, and we recede from Pierce to the extent it suggested the contrary. 3 As a corollary, a vocation is a profession if any graduate degree is required as a condition of state licensure, without regard to the nature of the undergraduate education.
In addition, the only relevant criteria for determining if a vocation is a profession are those applicable to first-time applicants who have never been licensed in another state or nation to practice the particular vocation in question. The fact that persons can be licensed in Florida because they hold a similar license in another state or nation is irrelevant, no matter what educational requirements the other state or nation imposes. We do not believe that the definition of "profession" and "professional" should hinge on the licensing provisions of jurisdictions outside Florida, even if Florida recognizes some form of reciprocal licensing.
Moreover, the fact that some members of the vocation may have been admitted at a time when college degrees were not needed has no bearing, nor are the persons previously so admitted considered nonprofessionals. 4 A profession comes into being for present purposes on the date the appropriate licensing body requires a four-year college degree or a graduate degree of all future admittees; and a profession ceases to exist on the date that any future admittees no longer need hold either a four-year undergraduate degree or a graduate degree. 5
In the same vein, a vocation is not a profession if there is any alternative method of admission that omits a required four-year undergraduate degree or a graduate degree. Likewise, a vocation is not a profession if a state license is not required at all. Nor are persons rendered "professionals" merely because they hold a four-year college degree if they are not absolutely required to hold the degree as a condition of licensing. Moreover, persons involved in more than one vocation fall under the professional malpractice statute only for acts performed while engaged in those vocations that actually qualify as professions. Similarly, the statute only applies if the alleged tortious conduct arose from the practice of a vocation that qualified as a "profession" at the moment in time when that conduct caused a completed injury or loss under recognized tort-law principles.
We acknowledge that Florida statutes recognize types of vocations similar to one another in name or purpose but with differing licensing requirements. In some cases, the differing requirements may merely reflect fields of specialization; but in others the question is not so easily resolved. There thus may be some confusion as to whether only one, or more than one, "profession" has been created. 6
Where there is any confusion, the question of separateness turns on the intent underlying the licensing statutes, regulations, or rules. In the absence of any express intent, the fact that a four-year undergraduate degree or graduate degree is required of one group, but not another, necessarily suggests that skills of a completely different order are required and that the former group is not merely a specialty within the latter group. 7 To the extent the trial court finds this to be true, a presumption arises that the group requiring the four-year undergraduate degree or graduate degree is a separate profession. 8
We limit the definition of "professional" set forth above to the context of the professional malpractice statute. It is not our intent that this definition be applied to any other reference to "professionals" or "professions" elsewhere in the Florida statutes, regulations, or rules, or in court cases that deal with issues other than the statute of limitations at issue here. We recognize that there may be occasions when courts, legislators, rulemaking authorities, and others may use the terms "profession" and "professional" more broadly or more narrowly than we do here today. 9
Because it is clear that at the times in question some land surveyors could be admitted to practice their occupation without at least a four-year college degree, see Sec. 472.013(2)(e), Fla.Stat. (1989), we conclude that Frier was not a "professional" for purposes of the relevant statute of limitations at the times in question. 10 Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative. The opinion under review is quashed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed above.
It is so ordered.
I concur with the Court's conclusion, but I am now persuaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Cox
...interpretation of the term "professional" in a statute of limitations. Pierce v. AALL Ins. Inc., 531 So.2d 84 (Fla.1988); Garden v. Frier, 602 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1992). Section 95.11(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), provided a shortened statute of limitations for claims against professionals, b......
-
Stephens v. Worden Ins. Agency, LLC.
...with the professions generally deemed subject to professional negligence liability, i.e., malpractice. As described in Garden v. Frier, 602 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla., 1992), a vocation is considered a profession subject to professional malpractice if a higher level of education, such as a grad......
-
Wyche v. State
...the majority except for its statement that the ordinance here cannot permissibly be narrowed by judicial construction. In Garden v. Frier, 602 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1992), five members of this Court not only rewrote a statute but literally added to that statute seven full paragraphs of new langua......
-
Gibb v. Citicorp Mortg., Inc., S-92-1107
...548 (Tenn.App.1979); First State Sav. v. Albright & Assoc., 561 So.2d 1326 (Fla.App.1990), disapproved on other grounds, Garden v. Frier, 602 So.2d 1273 (Fla.1992); Price-Orem Inv. v. Rollins, Brown & Gunnell, 713 P.2d 55 (Utah We follow suit and now specifically adopt the definition of the......
-
The administrative process and constitutional principles.
...government.(48) The most thoughtful comment on this problem was offered by Justice Kogan in his concurring opinion in Garden v. Frier, 602 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1992). He noted that when a statute is so ambiguous and vague that the courts have no clear guidance to its meaning, the courts violat......
-
Jay Alix, Mckinsey, and a Lack of Clarity
...(D.N.J. 1992) (citing In re Estate of Freeman (Lincoln Rochester Trust Co. v. Freeman), 311 N.E.2d 480, 483 (1974)).35. Garden v. Frier, 602 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 1992).36. See Polelle, supra note 28, at 223 n.114. 37. In re Am. Tissue, Inc., 331 B.R. 169, 173 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005) (citin......