CITY OF MIAMI, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM EVERETT MARCH AND CARLA MARCH, HIS WIFE, AND LUIS MANUEL LOPEZ, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-02-02
Nos. 80-602, 80-927 and 80-928
Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and JORGENSON, JJ.
409 So. 2d 1107 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982)

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.

Synopsis

The City of Miami appealed a declaratory judgment requiring it to indemnify two of its police officers who were held liable in a negligence suit against each other arising from an on-the-job automobile accident. The court reversed, holding that the City cannot be liable on a judgment to which it was not a party and against which it had worker's compensation immunity.


Holding

The City of Miami cannot be held liable on the tort judgment because it was not and could not be a party to the action. The court reversed the declaratory judgment requiring indemnification and remanded with directions to enter a judgment stating the City has no legal obligation to pay on the tort judgment.


Headnotes

[1] A municipality cannot be held liable for a tort judgment entered against its employees when the municipality was not a party to the underlying action and was immune from…

[2] An employer is immune from direct tort liability for employee negligence when the injured employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

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

Key Quotes

“As the City of Miami was not and could not be a party to this action, it plainly follows that it cannot be held liable on the judgment entered in the action.”

Core holding that a non-party to litigation cannot be held liable on a judgment in that action

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Two police officers employed by the City of Miami were involved in an automobile accident that arose out of and during the course of their employment.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Miami appeals from an adverse declaratory judgment entered below ordering it to indemnify two of its employees held liable on a tort judgment. The employees sued each other for simple negligence based on an automobile accident arising out of and in the course of their employment with the City of Miami as police officers.1 The employees had duly received worker’s compensation benefits from the City of Miami on said accident. Neither employee sued, and admittedly could not have sued, the City of Miami in this negligence action as same was barred by the City’s worker’s compensation immunity. § 440.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1977).

The employees, instead, chose litigation choice # 3 as stated in District School Board of Lake County v. Talmadge, 381 So. 2d 698, 703 (Fla.1980), to wit: a suit against the other “employee alone, without invoking section 768.28, under traditional legal principles regarding tort actions against public employees,” Id. at 703, and rejected litigation choices # 1 and # 2 under Talmadge, supra, which would have made the City a party defendant in the action under Section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1979).

As the City of Miami was not and could not be a party to this action, it plainly follows that it cannot be held liable on the judgment entered in the action. See also Seaboard Coastline R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978).

We, accordingly, reverse the declaratory judgment under review and remand to the trial court with directions to enter a declaratory judgment stating that the City of Miami has no legal obligation to pay on the tort judgment entered against the said employees in this cause. We, also, reverse the order of equitable distribution entered in this cause and under review by this appeal, as the City of Miami was not entitled to any worker’s compensation distribution payment herein. We, also, dismiss the appeal by the City of Miami as to the tort judgment entered in this cause as the City had no standing to appeal said judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

. Parenthetically, it should be noted that this suit could not be brought in the future as Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977) — the statute applicable to the accident in this cause — was amended effective July 1, 1979, to give worker’s compensation immunity “to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter.” § 440.-11(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).

This amendment, however, applies only to claims for injury arising out of accidents occurring on or after July 1, 1979. Ch. 79-40, § 127, Laws of Fla. As the accident in the instant case occurred prior to July 1, 1979, the amendment was inapplicable to the instant case and the suit herein was properly entertained in the trial court.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw