FRANCISCO LAUREANO MEDINA, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 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 court held that strict adherence to the home venue privilege would require plaintiffs to file identical suits in separate counties, which is counterproductive.
Appellant sued for an automobile accident, alleging responsibility on the part of DOT for locating a stop sign and failing to turn on traffic lights, …
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 Severability Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s order transferring venue of appellant’s action to Leon County, the location of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) headquarters, thereby severing the claim against DOT from the claim against Dade County. The complaint alleged responsibility on the part of DOT for its role in locating and positioning a stop sign and in failing to turn on the traffic lights at the intersection at which Medina’s automobile accident occurred.
The home venue privilege, entitling a governmental entity to be sued in the county where it maintains its headquarters, applies both to state agencies, Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1978); Florida Dept. of Transportation v. Lopez, 415 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and to state subdivisions. Metropolitan Dade County v. Kelly, 348 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). However, we agree with the opinion in Grice v. Board of County Commissioners, 413 So. 2d 88, 89-90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) that:
The cause of action is not properly sever-able under the usual rules, and strict adherence to the venue privilege would result in forcing the plaintiffs (appellants) to file identical suits in separate counties involving the same facts and issues. Such blind adherence to the privilege is counterproductive and contrary to the legislative purpose of promoting orderly and uniform handling of state litigation and minimizing expenditure of public funds and manpower. Minimization of expenditure of public funds and manpower is, after all, the reason for permitting the common law venue privilege. Florida Public Service Commission v. Triple “A” Enterprises, Inc., 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla.1980).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. McFADDEN, 432 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…committed to, and are unable to distinguish, that precedent from our supreme court. We are, therefore, not free to follow Grice v. Board of County Commissioners, 413 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982),1 and Medina v. Florida Department of Transportation, 426 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and with which we recognize this decision directly conflicts. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB, J., concur specially with opinions. . But cf. Dept. of Transportation v. Robinson, 424 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA…1 / 2
-
Frances B. Glenn, D.D.S. v. Rupert Q. Bliss, D.D.S., 437 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla.1977). Affirmed. . See Schultz v. Brevard County, 431 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . Because the appellant does not invoke or cite Medina v. Florida Department of Transportation, 426 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); compare Lake County v. Friedel, 387 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we do not discuss the applicability of that decision.…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Medina, 450 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1984)…BOYD, Justice. We have jurisdiction to review a decision of a district court of appeal, Medina v. Florida Department of Transportation, 426 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), which expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The district court below held that the trial court erred in transferring venue of respondent’s action against the Department of…
Authorities Cited
- Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n of the State of Fla., 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Triple "A" Enters., Inc., 387 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1980)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Kelly, 348 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Grice v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Madison Cnty., 413 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Fla. Dep't OF Transp. & State of Fla. v. Lopez, 415 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)