Hudson v. Dykes
| Decision Date | 11 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. WW-162,WW-162 |
| Parties | Elmer J. HUDSON, Individually, and Jack Hudson and Elmer J. Hudson, dba Hudson Contractors, Appellants, v. C. B. DYKES, Buddy Godwin, and Escambia County, a Political Subdivision of theState of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John R. Grass, Pensacola, for appellants.
J. Dixon Bridgers, III of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Pensacola, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a Summary Final Judgment, entered in an action for false imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellants performed certain plumbing work on a private residence without obtaining a surety bond, certificate of qualification, or plumbing permit. The reason appellants did not obtain the necessary permits, etc., was allegedly due to the assurances of appellee/Godwin, an Escambia County Building Inspector, that no permits would be required for the job. After completion of the work, final inspection was made by Godwin and another inspector, the work was approved, and the residence was certified for occupancy.
Several months later, appellant/Elmer Hudson was contacted by appellee/Dykes, Chief Plumbing and Gas Inspector for Escambia County, who asked Hudson why he had failed to obtain the necessary surety bond, certificate and permit and advised him to obtain the necessary documents at that time. Hudson refused to do so on the grounds that the work had been finally inspected and approved, and that Godwin had informed him that no permit was required for the work.
After several more weeks had elapsed and Hudson had not obtained the required documents, Dykes contacted the State's Attorney's Office, informed them that Hudson had performed certain plumbing work without acquiring the necessary permits, etc., and delivered a sworn affidavit to that effect. On the basis of this affidavit Hudson was subsequently arrested by law enforcement officers and charged with plumbing without a permit, surety bond, or certificate of qualification.
Hudson received a jury trial on these misdemeanor charges. The trial court directed a verdict in Hudson's favor on the charge of plumbing without a permit, and the jury acquitted him of the remaining charges. Hudson then brought the instant action against appellees, alleging that, as a result of appellees' fraudulent misrepresentations, he was falsely arrested and imprisoned. Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting affidavits. The lower court granted the motion.
Appellees did not actually detain either of appellants, nor did they "instigate" or "directly procure" Elmer Hudson's arrest. Pokorny v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 382 So.2d 678 (Fla.1980). Dykes merely supplied information to the prosecuting authorities indicating that a violation of the plumbing code had occurred. This is not sufficient to support a cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services
...proceeding against another, as was alleged here. Pokorny v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n, 382 So.2d 678 (Fla.1980); Hudson v. Dykes, 402 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Pokorny holds that the only cause of action available in such a situation is one of malicious prosecution. As the plaintif......
-
Wolfe v. Foreman
...So.2d 104, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (citing Pokorny v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n, 382 So.2d 678, 683 (Fla.1980)); Hudson v. Dykes, 402 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Nor, in any case, were the Kenny Nachwalter lawyers negligent or abusive in any action they took in the case. They act......
-
Phelan v. City of Coral Gables, 81-1311
...suit, case number 81-1318, which was consolidated with the instant appeal. This appeal was later dismissed.2 See also Hudson v. Dykes, 402 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (trial court's finding that defendant in malicious prosecution action had probable cause to believe a crime had been commi......
-
Harris v. Kearney
...to the authorities that a violation of law occurred is not sufficient to support an action for false arrest. See Hudson v. Dykes, 402 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (Where municipal building inspector delivered an affidavit about the lack of permits to the State Attorney's Office that l......
-
Physical torts
...alone is insufficient. Pokorny v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association , 382 So.2d 678, 683 (Fla. 1980). See Also Hudson v. Dykes , 402 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 10. Oral Protest Not Required: The plaintiff need not show that force was used in the detention, nor that she made ......