Ingham v. State, Dept. of Transp.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 60994,60994 |
| Citation | 419 So.2d 1081 |
| Parties | Mark Bradford INGHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for petitioner.
Alan E. DeSerio, Appellate Atty., A. J. Spalla, Trial Atty., and John H. Beck, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Transp., Tallahassee, for respondents.
This is a petition to review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported as Ingham v. Department of Transportation, 399 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The case concerns the alleged negligence of a governmental entity in constructing a road with a curve, in determining the position, shape and size of a median, and in failing to provide adequate traffic signals. This decision requires a determination of whether this conduct constitutes an "operational-level" or a "judgmental, planning-level" governmental function as set out in Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1979), and Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982). There is direct conflict with Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So.2d 799 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. We approve the district court's decision. We hold that the alleged defects in the construction of the road, the median, and the intersection, if in fact they are defects, are defects inherent in the overall plan of the road. Neither these alleged defects nor the failure to install additional traffic control devices is actionable because each is a judgmental, planning-level function to which absolute immunity attaches. Department of Transportation v. Neilson.
It is so ordered.
I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Department of Transportation v. Neilson, --- So.2d ---- Case Nos. 61,029, 61,042 and 61,053 (Fla. September 14, 1982).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howlett Howlett v. Rose
...the overall plan." See State Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071, 1077-1078 (Fla.1982); Ingham v. State Department of Transportation, 419 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1982); see also Harrison v. Escambia County School Bd., 434 So.2d 316, 320 (Fla.1983) ("[T]he statutory words 'most r......
-
Trianon Park Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
...of Transportation, 435 So.2d 830 (Fla.1983); City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982); Ingham v. Department of Transportation, 419 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1982); Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982). A governmental entity's decision not to build or m......
-
Everton v. Willard
...Department of Transp., 435 So.2d 830 (Fla.1983); Harrison v. Escambia County School Bd., 434 So.2d 316 (Fla.1983); Ingham v. State Dep't of Transp., 419 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1982); and City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (1982). These cases illustrate the point that the waiver of so......
-
Davis v. State, Dept. of Corrections
...thereafter the Florida Supreme Court decided the Neilson trilogy ( Department of Transportation v. Neilson; Ingham v. State, Department of Transportation, 419 So.2d 1081 (Fla.1982); City of St. Petersburg v. Collom ). Three basic rules appear to have emerged from these opinions: (1) Defects......