JAMES D. MCCLUNG, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAMELA MCCLUNG, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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.
The court reversed the dismissal of a negligence complaint against governmental entities, holding that the trial court prematurely dismissed the case without developing sufficient facts to apply the planning-versus-operational activity test required to determine sovereign immunity.
A complaint against governmental entities for negligence cannot be dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds without developing a factual record sufficient to apply the Commercial Carrier four-pronged test distinguishing planning from operational activities.
[1] A governmental entity's sovereign immunity defense based on the planning-versus-operational activity distinction cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone; the record mus…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, as personal representative of a deceased estate, sued the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County and their insurance carriers. The…
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 Governmental Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against the City of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County and their insurance carriers. The determinative issue in the trial court and at this level is whether the governmental acts complained of should be characterized as “planning” or “operational” level activity as those terms are defined in Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). If they are planning level activities, the governmental entities are immune; if they are operational level activities, sovereign immunity would not apply and the governmental entities would be subject to suit.
The Supreme Court in Commercial Carrier recommended a four pronged test to aid in the resolution of this question. It is our belief that the reasoned application of this four part test requires the development of facts which are simply not present in the record before us. Here the record consists only of the pleadings filed. The parties’ allegations do not disclose sufficient facts to permit the application of the Commercial Carrier test in this case. Consequently, we reverse the order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and remand the cause for the purpose of developing a record which will permit an application of the considerations set forth in Commercial Carrier and the cases cited in that decision. See Ferla v. Metropolitan Dade County, 374 So. 2d 64 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1980); Barnum v. State, 72 Wash.2d 928, 435 P. 2d 678 (1967).
ANSTEAD, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty., 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979)
- Bias v. Warner Bias, 374 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)