Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 62094

Citation471 So.2d 1,10 Fla. L. Weekly 348
Decision Date17 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 62094,62094
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 348 Orla RALPH, Petitioner, v. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, a municipal corporation, and Cheryl Ann Fetsko, Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Paul Bernardini of LaRue and Bernardini, Daytona Beach, and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, and Cutler, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Alfred A. Green, Jr., Frank B. Gummey, III, Robert G. Brown and Reginald E. Moore, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

Alan E. DeSerio, Appellate Atty. and John H. Beck, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for Dept. of Transp., amicus curiae.

EHRLICH, Justice.

The limited issue in this case is whether a complaint that alleges that the City of Daytona Beach allowed a known hazardous condition to exist on the beach without warning the public invited to use the beach for recreational purposes of that known hazardous condition, states a cause of action able to withstand a motion to dismiss. We hold that it does.

The petitioner sued the City of Daytona Beach and Cheryl Fetsko for injuries she sustained on a Sunday afternoon in August when a car driven by Fetsko ran over her while she was sunbathing on Daytona Beach. In the count directed to the city, petitioner contended that by virtue of a charter provision declaring and making the beach between the high and low water mark within the city limits a public highway, which provision also gave the city jurisdiction, supervision and control over the highway, the city had assumed an obligation to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the public by accepting such power; that the city had invited sunbathers to use the beach and is held to the same duty of care as is required of private persons and corporations, to-wit: reasonable care for the safety of such persons who use the beach pursuant to said invitation; that the city had a duty to petitioner to keep said beach in a reasonably safe condition and to warn persons such as petitioner while using said beach of known dangerous conditions; that the city had a duty to warn petitioner of the danger of motor vehicle traffic not being supervised; that the city failed to comply with its duty; and that as a direct and proximate cause of the city's negligence and carelessness, petitioner was injured. The trial court dismissed with prejudice petitioner's third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The district court affirmed on the grounds that the regulation of traffic on the beach was a discretionary, planning level function and thus the city was immune from suit. Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 412 So.2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Petitioner then sought review of the district court's opinion alleging in this Court that the opinion expressly and directly conflicted with Savignac 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, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we hereby quash the decision of the district court below.

The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint which undertook to allege a cause of action against the city for negligently failing to warn of a known hazardous condition. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom are allowed in favor of the plaintiff. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972); Popwell v. Abel, 226 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Applying that standard to the instant case, we find that petitioner's third amended complaint does state a cause of action.

Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982), is closely on point. There, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint against the governmental entity because of planning level immunity. We agreed with the trial court under the specific factual posture of that case but stated that "[i]f the complaint had alleged a known trap or dangerous condition for which there was no proper warning, such an allegation would have stated a cause of action." 419 So.2d at 1078. The rationale behind this statement is language from Neilson and the holding of City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982). In Neilson, we said:

The failure to so warn of a known danger is, in our view, a negligent omission at the operational level of government and cannot reasonably be argued to be within the judgmental, planning-level sphere. Clearly, this type of failure may serve as the basis for an action against the governmental entity.

419 So.2d at 1078. Likewise, we said in Collom:

We hold that when a governmental entity creates a known dangerous condition, which is not readily apparent to persons who could be injured by the condition, a duty at the operational-level arises to warn the public of, or protect the public from, the known danger. The failure to fulfill this operational-level duty is, therefore, a basis for an action against the governmental entity.

419 So.2d at 1083. The complaint in the instant case did allege a dangerous condition for which there was no proper warning and as such did state a cause of action. The motion to dismiss was thus improvidently granted.

The allegations in the third amended complaint, at the very least, come within Neilson in alleging that the city was negligent in failing to warn sunbathers that there would be no adequate traffic supervision. 1 1 While the fact of vehicular traffic on the beach was widely-known, it was not readily apparent to sunbathers invited to use the beach for sunbathing that this lethal mixture of cars and reclining persons was inadequately supervised. The city clearly had a duty to warn of its inadequate supervision and thus protect the public from this known danger. It is within...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Wallace v. Dean
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 29, 2009
    ...are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom are allowed in favor of the plaintiff." Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1983) (emphasis supplied) (citing Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So.2d 881 (Fla.1972); Popwell v. Abe......
  • FLORIDA DHRS v. SAP
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 27, 2002
    ...768.28(12) subsequently was renumbered section 768.28(13). See § 768.28(13), Fla. Stat. (1995). 2. See, e.g., Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1983) ("For the purposes of a motion to dismiss ... allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable infere......
  • Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2010
    ...See Florida Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. S.A.P., 835 So.2d 1091, 1094 (Fla.2002) (citing Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1983)). Our standard of review is de novo. See id. (citing Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co., 752 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla.2000......
  • Susan Fixel, Inc. v. Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2003
    ...1032 (citations omitted). See also Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 732, 734-35 (Fla.2002); Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1985); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State, 262 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla.1972); Alvarez v. E & A Produce, 708 So.2d 997, 999 (Fla. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Governmental tort liability in Florida; a tangled web.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 2, February 2003
    • February 1, 2003
    ...Beach v. Palmer, 469 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1985) (no liability for failure to properly fight a fire) 16) Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1985) (liability for negligently failing to warn of motor vehicles on 17) Avallone v. Bd. of County Comm'rs Citrus County, 493 So. 2d 1002 (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT