THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLANT,
v.
DERRICK EDWARDS, 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.
The Florida Department of Corrections appealed a trial court's decision transferring venue of a negligence action from Leon County (where the agency's headquarters is located) to Collier County (where the incident occurred). The appellate court reversed, holding that the state agency's common law privilege to be sued in the county of its headquarters applies to negligence actions and was not waived.
The trial court erred in transferring venue. The state agency's common law privilege to be sued in the county where it maintains its headquarters applies to negligence actions and was not waived, so venue must lie in Leon County regardless of convenience to parties and witnesses.
[1] A state agency does not waive its common law privilege to be sued in the county where it maintains its headquarters by filing a motion for change of venue.
[2] A cause of action sounding in negligence is not an exception to the common law venue privilege of a state agency.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“whether the trial court erred in transferring venue of a negligence action against the Department of Corrections, an agency of the state, from the Second Judicial Circuit, which includes the county of the agency's official residence, to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, over the objection of the state agency”
Statement of the central issue on appeal regarding the validity of the venue transfer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA negligence action was filed against the Department of Corrections arising from an incident that occurred in Collier County. The plaintiff received t…
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
JOANOS, Judge.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in transferring venue of a negligence action against the Department of Corrections, an agency of the state, from the Second Judicial Circuit, which includes the county of the agency’s official residence, to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, over the objection of the state agency. We find that it was error and reverse.
The motion for change of venue was filed pursuant to Section 47.122, Florida Statutes (1977), which allows changes of venue for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. The record reveals that the incident at issue occurred in Collier County (which is in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit), treatment of the plaintiff took place in Collier County, all of the personnel of the Department of Corrections who were involved in the incident are located in Collier County, and all other witnesses are located in Collier County with the exception of one treating physician who is from Dade County.
While we may agree with the trial court that the public policy considerations favor the transfer of venue, we are constrained by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1978), to conclude that venue must lie in Leon County since the state did not waive its common law privilege to be sued in the county where the state agency maintains its headquarters. In Carlile the Court specifically asserted that although there are exceptions to the common law venue privilege, a cause of action sounding in negligence is not one of them.1 REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . Chapter 81-317, Laws of Florida, amends Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, to provide that an action in tort may be brought in the county where the cause of action accrued “if the affected agency or subdivision has an office in such county for the transaction of its customary business.” Even if this amendment were otherwise applicable, which we do not decide here, it would not be applicable to this cause of action because it was made explicitly effective only as to causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 1981.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred Dickinson & the Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Fla. Nat'l Org. FOR Women, Inc., 763 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ade the day after the Department was served. With respect to the arguments as to the inconvenience and cost to the plaintiffs were venue to be changed, these do not warrant an exception to the rule. See, e.g., State, Dep’t of Corrections v. Edwards, 410 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(recognizing that while public policy considerations and convenience of parties and witnesses ordinarily would support venue elsewhere, the home venue privilege required the case to be heard in Leon County). [*1249] Concluding tha…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Robinson, 424 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ts principal headquarters.” Carlile, at 366. That principle has been consistently reaffirmed with few exceptions. See Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple “A” Enterprises, Inc., 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla.1980); Department of Corrections v. Edwards, 410 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); County of Volusia v. Atlantic International Investment Corp., 394 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Department of Transportation v. Bromante, 365 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); City of Boca Raton v. Walker, 354 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3…
Authorities Cited
- Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n of the State of Fla., 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977)