Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach
| Decision Date | 08 June 1938 |
| Citation | 132 Fla. 675,182 So. 228 |
| Parties | KENNEDY v. City of Daytona Beach [*] |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1938.
Error to Circuit Court, Volusia County; H. B. Frederick, Judge.
Suit by Frank Everett Kennedy against the City of Daytona Beach a municipal corporation in Volusia County, Florida, for false imprisonment and assault and battery allegedly committed upon the plaintiff by the chief of police of the defendant city. To review an adverse judgment, the plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Ray Selden, of Daytona Beach, for plaintiff in error.
Leon J C. Harton, of Daytona Beach, for defendant in error.
Writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of defendant in a suit instituted by plaintiff in error in the court below to recover damages against the City of Daytona Beach resulting as is alleged in the declaration, from a false imprisonment and assault and battery alleged to have been committed by J B. Haney as Chief of Police of the City of Daytona Beach while 'the said J. B. Haney as, and acting as and acting within the scope of his employment as Chief of Police of the City of Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, were done and performed for and in behalf of the said City of Daytona Beach, Florida, and as the recognized duly qualified and acting Chief of Police of the said City of Daytona Beach, Florida.'
The declaration is in four counts, but there is no material difference in the allegations of the several counts.
The question presented is:
'Did the Circuit Court below err by reason of its holding that the City of Daytona Beach, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of Florida, and having the 'Mayor-Commission' from of organization, the defendant in error herein, could not be held liable for falsely imprisoning plaintiff in error herein?'
Stated another way, the question is:
'Was the lower court correct in holding that plaintiff's-in-error sole remedy for false imprisonment and/or assault and battery at the hands of defendant-in-error's police officer was an action solely against the police officer, and not the defendant-in-error City, in spite of the fact that said City was being operated under the 'Commission-Manager' theory of municipal organization?'
The plaintiff in error has stated the same question in two other ways.
Plaintiff in error admits in his brief that the law as established under the rule of stare decisis in this State is against his contention but he contends that the court should depart from its enunciations in former cases and hold the municipality liable for the acts of its police officers wrongfully committed in the discharge or performance of their duties as such officers.
The plaintiff-in-error's theory appeals somewhat to our sense of justice, but we must follow the law as it is established. Under the common law, law enforcement officers were considered arms of the King and while an officer might be held liable for his wrongful acts the Government or that branch of the Government for which he acted, could not be held liable on the theory that 'The King can do no Wrong', or the theory of Governmental or sovereign immunity. The common law has not been abrogated by statute in this State and heretofore we have followed the established principle 'that a municipal corporation is not liable for the tortious acts committed by its officers as such unless the acts complained of were committed in the exercise of some corporate power or in the performance of some duty imposed upon the municipality by law and that it is not liable for the unlawful or prohibitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cauley v. City of Jacksonville
...an arrestee, City of Miami v. Bethel, 65 So.2d 34 (Fla.1953), and falsely arrested and imprisoned an arrestee, Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 182 So. 228 (1938). However, at the same time municipalities were supposedly immune, city police were held accountable for not provi......
-
Andrews v. Florida Parole Com'n
...on the theory that `The King can do no Wrong', or the theory of Governmental or sovereign immunity." Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 677, 182 So. 228, 229 (1938). Article X, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution (1968) recognizes sovereign immunity of this kind which, howev......
-
Hoffman v. Jones
...the matter of changing statutory law is not one to be indulged by the Court, but is a legislative function. Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 182 So. 228 (1938). Therein, this Court also reaffirmed the principle that the common law, if not abrogated by statute or constitutiona......
-
Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc. v. Smith
...whether a municipal corporation could be sued for the torts of its law enforcement officers, the court held in Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 182 So. 228 (1938) that the common law theory of sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by statute, and thatthe matter of changin......