Neilson v. City of Tampa, s. 79-1510
| Decision Date | 19 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80-357,Nos. 79-1510,s. 79-1510 |
| Citation | 400 So.2d 799 |
| Parties | William M. NEILSON, a minor, Kim L. Neilson, a minor, Robert F. Neilson, a minor, by and through their father and next friend, William E. Neilson, and William E. Neilson, individually, and Patricia P. Neilson, Appellants, v. CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal corporation; Harvey Daniel Glisson; Belcher Oil Company, a Florida corporation; Home Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Florida; and Hillsborough County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Simons & Schlesinger, P.A., Fort Lauderdale and Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
Robert H. Bonanno, Asst. City Atty., Tampa, for appellee City of Tampa.
Alan E. DeSerio, Ella Jane P. Davis, H. Reynolds Sampson and Jay O. Barber, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Transportation.
Joseph W. Clark, Raymond T. Elligett, Jr. and Charles P. Schropp of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Hillsborough County.
The Neilsons appeal from the dismissal of their personal injury complaint against the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Department of Transportation. Appellants allege that the lower court erred in finding the governmental defendants immune from suit in light of the supreme court's opinion in Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1979). We agree that defendants are not immune and we reverse.
Appellants' complaint alleged injuries resulting from a vehicular collision. Those counts directed against the governmental defendants alleged that the intersection where the collision occurred was defectively designed, not adequately controlled with traffic control signs, and hazardous to approaching motorists. Appellants alleged that the three governmental entities designed, maintained and constructed the intersection and failed to conform with the State Uniform Traffic Control Ordinances and Regulations.
After dismissal of the complaints, this court remanded for reconsideration in light of the subsequent case of Commercial Carrier, supra. Neilson v. Department of Transportation, 376 So.2d 296 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The circuit court again dismissed the complaints.
The Florida Supreme Court in Commercial Carrier adopted a test distinguishing between "planning" and "operational" levels of decision making by governmental agencies. Planning decisions remain immune from tort liability because "certain functions of coordinate branches of government may not be subjected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v. Escambia County School Bd.
...a decision to design an allegedly dangerous intersection not adequately controlled with traffic control signs, Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); a decision not to install additional warning devices at a railroad crossing, Dept. of Transp. v. Webb, 409 So.2d 1061 (F......
-
Department of Transp. v. Neilson
...Justice. These are three petitions to review one decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported as Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The case involves an interpretation of "operational-level" as distinguished from "judgmental planning-level" functions of ......
-
Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 62094
...v. Department of Transportation, 406 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), petition denied, 413 So.2d 875 (Fla.1982); Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), quashed, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982); and Collom v. City of St. Petersburg, 400 So.2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), approved, 41......
-
Savignac v. Dept. of Transp., 80-1561.
...to a known segment of the public that were created by the operations involved in implementing that decision. See Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We hasten to emphasize, however, that all of the material allegations we have identified in this opinion must be prove......