Pollock v. Florida Dept. of Highway Patrol
Decision Date | 10 June 2004 |
Docket Number | No. SC99-41., No. SC99-8 |
Citation | 882 So.2d 928 |
Parties | Steven POLLOCK, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL, Respondent. Michael Leeds, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Florida Department of Highway Patrol, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Dan Cytryn, Tamarac, FL, on behalf of Steven Pollock; and Jay M. Levy, Miami, FL, on behalf of Michael Leeds and Barbara Leeds, for Petitioners.
Sheridan Weissenborn and Charles C. Papy, Jr. of Papy, Weissenborn, Poole & Vraspir, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review State Department of Highway Patrol v. Pollack, 745 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999),1 based upon certified conflict with the decisions in Hoover v. Polk County Sheriff's Department, 611 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Cook v. Sheriff of Collier County, 573 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The tragic facts of this unfortunate case were summarized by the Third District Court of Appeal in its opinion in Pollack2 (consolidated with Leeds below) as follows:
In addition, Rule 12.00.00 entitled Crash Prevention, provides:
Crash prevention and crash investigation are the primary functions of the Florida Highway Patrol and the duty officer's role in these endeavors are of major importance. Strict adherence to this chapter will enable every officer to handle these responsibilities in an efficient and professional manner.
Pollack, 745 So.2d at 447-48 & nn. 2-4.
In both cases, the trial court, consistent with the jury verdicts, entered judgments for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the district court reversed and directed that final judgments be entered in favor of the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP), because "there was nothing to indicate that FHP's actions or inactions were operational in nature and ... FHP otherwise owed no special duty to the decedents, as a matter of law, so as to impose governmental tort liability." Id. at 447. Furthermore, in response to the contention that FHP's duty toward the decedents arose from its own policies and procedures governing incident response, the district court held that "a governmental agency's policy or procedure manual cannot, standing alone, create an independent duty to individual citizens." Id. at 450. The court below certified a conflict with Hoover and Cook, despite finding the cases to be "distinguishable from a procedural standpoint" from the instant case. Id. at 450-51. This review followed.
We begin by narrowing our focus to the issue squarely before us. We are not faced here with the question of whether, in a modern society led to rely upon the social compact with its protective network of safeguards against public harm, the public should not be entitled to rely upon that network, nor whether a governmental agency entrusted with implementation of one such safeguard should ever ignore its responsibility to respond when alerted to a potential crisis. The answers to these morally compelling questions are obvious. However, while our rule of law generally gives effect to its moral underpinnings, these are not the only concerns manifest in the area of the law we address today. There is also an august body of law which we must follow in determining those instances in which the sovereign will be liable for failings such as occurred here.3
In the cases before us, FHP has successfully invoked sovereign immunity at the district court level in defending against the wrongful death actions filed by the Pollocks and the Leeds. In reviewing the district court decision, it is useful to restate the analytical framework applied to questions of governmental tort liability. The State of Florida has waived sovereign immunity from liability in tort actions "for any act for which a private person under similar circumstances would be held liable." Henderson v. Bowden, 737 So.2d 532, 534-35 (Fla.1999) (citing Art. X, § 13, Fla. Const.; § 768.28 Fla. Stat. (1995)).4 Thus, "[t]here can be no governmental liability unless a common law or statutory duty of care existed that would have been applicable to an individual under similar circumstances." Henderson, 737 So.2d at 535.
If no duty of care is owed with respect to alleged negligent conduct, then there is no governmental liability, and the question of whether the sovereign should be immune from suit need not be reached. See Alderman v. Lamar, 493 So.2d 495, 497 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
; see also Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 734 (Fla.1989) () (quoting Williams v. State, 34 Cal.3d 18, 192 Cal.Rptr. 233, 664 P.2d 137, 139 (1983)). However, if a duty of care is owed, it must then be determined whether sovereign immunity bars an action for an alleged breach of that duty. See Henderson, 737 So.2d at 535. In making this assessment, it is necessary to ascertain the character of the allegedly negligent governmental act or omission. As this Court has determined, basic judgmental or discretionary governmental functions are immune from legal action, whereas operational acts are not protected by sovereign immunity. See id. at 537-38.
In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the duty of care owed by FHP to the decedents arose from two separate sources. First, the petitioners assert that as the governmental entity with the ultimate responsibility to patrol the state highways, and to control and regulate traffic, FHP had a common law duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition, to warn of known dangers on the roadway, and to correct any dangerous conditions. Second, the petitioners argue that FHP's policies and procedures governing incident response created a duty to dispatch an officer to the scene of the stalled tractor-trailer.5 After a careful review of these contentions and controlling caselaw, we conclude that FHP had no such duty of care.
The contention that FHP's common law duty to maintain the roadway and keep it free of obstructions is an outgrowth of its duty to patrol the state highways and control the movement of traffic misconstrues existing principles of duty and tort law. It is well settled that a public or private entity which owns, operates, or controls a property, including a roadway, owes a duty to maintain that property, and a corresponding duty to warn of and correct dangerous conditions thereon. See, e.g., Bailey Drainage Dist. v. Stark, 526 So.2d 678, 681 (Fla.1988)
( ); City of Orlando v. Heard, 29 Fla. 581, 11 So. 182, 184 (1892) ( ); Jauma v. City of Hialeah, 758...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wallace v. Dean
... ... No. SC08-149 ... Supreme Court of Florida ... January 29, 2009 ... Rehearing Denied February ... See id. at 1024 (relying upon Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Kropff, 491 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d ... See, e.g., Pollock v. Fla. Dep't of Highway Patrol, 882 So.2d 928, 932-33 ... ...
-
In re Marjory Stoneman Douglas High Sch. Shooting FTCA Litig.
...create an independent duty of care under Florida negligence law. Plaintiffs cite only two cases applying Florida law, Pollock v. Fla. DHP , 882 So. 2d 928, 937 (Fla. 2004) and City of Jacksonville v. DeRay , 418 So. 2d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). As the Court explained earlier, Pollock ......
- Demond v. Project Serv., LLC
-
Lippman v. City of Miami
... ... United States District Court, S.D. Florida ... July 24, 2008 ... Page 1338 ... COPYRIGHT ... them, or otherwise subjecting them to danger." Pollock v. Florida Dep't of Highway Patrol, 882 So.2d 928, 935 ... ...
-
Legal theories & defenses
...of Torts §324A (1965). Source Wallace v. Dean , 3 So.3d 1035, 1052 (Fla. 2009). See Also 1. Pollock v. Florida Dept. of Highway Patrol , 882 So.2d 928, 942 (Fla. 2004). 2. Kerfoot v. Waychoff , 501 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 1987) (The district court recognized the principle that “an action under......
-
Florida's public duty doctrine.
...issued a long-awaited (1) and significant opinion in the area of governmental tort law when it decided Pollock v. Florida Highway Patrol, 882 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2004). Factually, Pollock involved a wrongful death action arising from a September 5, 1993, collision of a vehicle in which the pla......