JOHN BESECKER, APPELLANT,
v.
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Besecker appeals the dismissal of his negligence complaint against Seminole County for injuries sustained in a collision at an uncontrolled intersection. The court affirmed dismissal based on sovereign immunity, holding that the County's alleged failure to install traffic control devices constituted planning-level rather than operational-level activity.
The County's alleged failure to install traffic control devices at the intersection is protected by sovereign immunity as a planning-level decision. The plaintiff's allegations of near-accidents and notice that a stop sign was needed were insufficient to elevate this to an operational-level decision requiring the installation of traffic control devices.
[1] A governmental entity's failure to place traffic control devices at an intersection may be considered a planning-level activity, thus protected by sovereign immunity.
[2] Allegations of prior near-accidents at an intersection, without more, are insufficient to establish that a governmental entity knew or should have known the intersection…
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“the County's alleged failure to act fell within the realm of planning level activities as opposed to the operational level”
Establishes the basis for dismissal under sovereign immunity doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBesecker was injured in a collision at a county intersection that had no traffic control signs or devices. He alleged the County knew or should have k…
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 Sovereign Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Besecker appeals from the dismissal of his amended complaint against Seminole County. He was injured in a collision at an intersection in the County where there were no traffic control signs or devices of any kind. He alleged the County had a duty to inspect, design, and maintain the County’s roads and intersections, and that it knew or should have known the intersection was dangerous because there had previously been a number of near collisions there. Be-secker concluded that the County’s failure to put any kind of traffic control device at the intersection caused the collision in which he was injured. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint on the grounds that Besecker’s suit was barred by sovereign immunity because the County’s alleged failure to act fell within the realm of planning level activities as opposed to the operational level. We affirm.
The determination of this case requires the application of Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979) beyond the limits expressly stated by the Florida Supreme Court. In Commercial Carrier, the supreme court declined to consider whether liability can be imposed on governmental bodies for failure to place traffic control devices at an intersection. Other district courts of appeal appear to be reaching different results in answering this question.1
In the present ease, the plaintiff did not allege the County designed and built the intersection in a manner to make it hazardous. The plaintiff further failed to allege a sufficient basis to support his legal conclusion that the County knew the intersection was dangerous, thereby making the need to put up some kind of traffic control device so clear that this kind of decision became an operational rather than a planning level decision. See Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The plaintiff merely alleged there had been “near accidents” at this intersection and that the County had been told (by someone) that a stop sign was needed. Unlike the Webb case, the County had not admitted that the intersection was dangerous and that the installation of a device to protect motorists was required.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . Compare Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (court found complaint which alleged negligence on the part of the city, county and Department of Transportation in maintaining and designing an intersection and in failing to put up an adequate traffic control device stated a cause of action) with Ingham v. State Dep’t. of Transp., 399 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (majority held the trial court properly dismissed the complaint, which alleged the Department of Transportation was negligent in constructing the road, placing and designing the median, and failing to provide adequate signals, because such activities are discretionary policy functions).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldelbert Rivers v. State, 458 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1984)…nes v. State, 332 So. 2d 615 (Fla.1976). However, because defense counsel did not subsequently attempt to “backstrike” any prospective juror after the judge made this statement, this issue has not been properly preserved for appeal. Denham v. State, 421 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In addition, given the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, we find that noncompliance with this rule was harmless error. Jones v. State. Next appellant argues that the trial judge should have held a hearing to determine…
-
Tedder v. Video Elecs., Inc., 491 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1986)…tempting to backstrike and not being allowed to use their peremptory challenge to do so, respondents have shown prejudice and the point has been properly preserved for appeal. Compare Rivers v. State, 458 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla.1984); Denham v. State, 421 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Respondents ultimately lost at trial. In the subsequent appeal, the First District held that the trial judge had abused his discretion in the jury selection process and remanded for a new trial. Under our common law, the time a…
-
Grant v. State, 429 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…e deprived of the opportunity to exercise such peremptory challenges and such challenges for cause which he may have in order to provide him with the greatest opportunity to have a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his peers. In Denham v. State, 421 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we stated in dicta that the trial court should not prohibit backstriking. Sub judice, the trial judge did not initially offer the accused a full and open jury selection, which he then restricted for reasons within his broad disc…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty., 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Neilson v. City OF Tampa, 400 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Ingham v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp., 399 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)