LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS S. FRIEDEL ET AL., APPELLEES; LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLANTS, V. CURTIS A. MACNUTT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lake County sought to invoke its common law venue privilege to be sued only in its home county when joined as a co-defendant with Sumter County in negligence actions. The court held that Lake County retains its venue privilege even when joined with another county as a co-defendant, and that only the Legislature may modify this privilege.
Lake County retains its common law venue privilege as a political subdivision of the state and may be prosecuted in tort actions only in Lake County, even when joined as a co-defendant with another county. The trial court orders denying Lake County's venue motions were quashed and the cases were remanded for entry of orders granting those motions.
[1] A county possesses a common law venue privilege to be prosecuted in tort actions only in the county where it is located.
[2] The venue privilege of a county in tort actions is not waived by its joinder as a co-defendant with another county in the county where the action is filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appellant, Lake County, contends that it has a common law privilege, as a political subdivision of the state, to be prosecuted in a tort action only in Lake County.”
States the core legal issue—whether counties possess a venue privilege limiting where they can be sued
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn both companion cases, Lake County was named as a co-defendant with Sumter County (where the actions were filed) based on allegations of negligent m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Law Venue Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
These companion cases pose the problem of the right of a county to assert its venue privilege when it is joined as a co-defendant with the county wherein the action is filed. In both cases, Lake County was named as a co-defendant with Sumter County, wherein the actions were filed, based on allegations of negligent maintenance of a roadway located on the boundary of the two counties. Defensive motions by Lake County and its carrier seeking dismissal for improper venue in the Friedel case and for severance and transfer in the MacNutt case were denied by the trial court. Timely interlocutory appeals pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, were filed.
The appellant, Lake County, contends that it has a common law privilege, as a political subdivision of the state, to be prosecuted in a tort action only in Lake County. Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1978); Williams v. City of Lake City, 62 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1953); State of Florida, Dept. of Transportation v. Bromante, 365 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The circumstances of the county being a third-party defendant makes no difference. See, e. g., Metropolitan Dade County v. Kelly, 348 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Appellee Friedel argues that there should be an exception to the venue rule where two counties are joined as defendants in order to expedite adjudication, a fundamental goal of modern procedure. Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1969). The appellee relies on cases involving the joinder of two corporate or individual defendants situate (for venue purposes) in differ ent counties,1 but they are readily distinguishable from the instant issue involving political subdivisions of the state. As pointed out in Carlile, there has been no legislative waiver of the venue privilege in civil negligence actions, nor does the so-called “sword-wielder” doctrine apply as an exception in the absence of an alleged unlawful invasion of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff within the county where the suit is instituted. Carlile, at 365.
In view of the clear precedent, and despite the logically persuasive reasons based upon convenience and efficiency for eliminating the venue privilege of a political subdivision under the circumstances of this case, we find that such an innovation is one which is the province of the Legislature, not the courts.
Accordingly, the orders of the trial court denying the motions of Lake County asserting its venue privilege are quashed, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of orders granting said motions.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See L. B. McLeod Const. Co. v. State, 106 Fla. 805, 143 So. 594 (1932) and Doonan v. Poole, 114 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2d DCA 1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Madison Cnty. v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1983)…University, Inc., 397 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); County of Volusia v. Atlantic International Investment Corp., 394 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ford, 392 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Lake County v. Friedel, 387 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State Department of Transportation v. Bromante, 365 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); City of Boca Raton v. Walker, 354 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1221 (1978). The result, of course, is separate proceedings…
-
Cnty. OF Volusia v. Atl. Int'l Inv. Corp., 394 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ued in the county where it maintains its principal headquarters — Volusia County. Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple “A” Enterprises, 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla.1980); Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, supra; Lake County v. Friedel, 387 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). AIIC argues that the actions of Vol-usia were joint with those of the other state agencies and, therefore, this cause of action is not severable. However, the complaint alleges only that the actions of Volusia County and of the…
-
Grice v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Madison Cnty., 413 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…t. Our sister court, in addressing an analogous but distinguishable situation, held that eliminating the home venue privilege when co-defendants are separate counties is within the province of the legislature, not the courts. Lake County v. Friedel, 387 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We have no quarrel with this reasoning, but in this instance the elimination of the home venue privilege is not at issue. The Florida Supreme Court in Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1978), cit…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n of the State of Fla., 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977)
- Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Gulf Stream Motors, Inc. v. Christina Cook & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969)
- Williams v. City OF Lake City, 62 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1953)
- L. B. McLeod Constr. Co. v. State, 106 Fla. 805 (Fla. 1932)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Kelly, 348 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State of Fla. Dept. OF Transp. v. Bromante, 365 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Doonan v. Poole, 114 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)