DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PETITIONER,
v.
SHEILA WEBB, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Supreme Court reviewed a First District Court of Appeal decision that held the Department of Transportation liable for negligence in failing to maintain a railroad crossing and warn of a known dangerous condition. The Court approved the result but clarified that certain decisions constituted operational-level functions subject to tort liability, while distinguishing between planning decisions (immune) and maintenance/warning decisions (not immune).
The Court approved the result reached by the district court because the case was properly presented to the jury on the issue of the Department's negligent failure to maintain the railroad crossing and failure to warn motorists of a known dangerous condition. These operational-level functions are not immune from suit.
[1] A governmental entity's failure to upgrade a railroad intersection and install traffic control devices are planning-level functions, not operational-level functions, and…
[2] A governmental entity's failure to place warning signs at a known dangerous railroad crossing and failure to maintain the crossing constitute negligent, tortious conduct…
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 failure to place warning signs at a railroad crossing which is known to be dangerous and the failure to maintain the railroad crossing are operational-level functions and constitute negligent, tortious conduct, immunity to which is waived by section 768.28, Florida Statutes”
Establishes the court's holding that operational-level maintenance and warning functions are subject to tort liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Transportation was sued regarding a railroad intersection where failure to upgrade the intersection, install traffic control devices…
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 Negligent Maintenance cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal reported as Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We find conflict with Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1982), and City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1982), because the district court opinion appears to hold that the failure to upgrade a railroad intersection and the failure to install traffic control devices are operational-level func tions which are not immune from suit under Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). This holding would be incorrect under our decision in Neilson. The district court opinion also reflects that the failure to place warning signs at a railroad crossing which is known to be dangerous and the failure to maintain the railroad crossing are operational-level functions and constitute negligent, tortious conduct, immunity to which is waived by section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1977). This portion of the district court’s holding is consistent with our opinions in Commercial Carrier, Neilson, and Ralph v. City of Daytona Beach, No. 62,094 (Fla. Feb. 17, 1983).
We approve the result reached by the district court because this case was presented to the jury on the issue of the petitioner’s negligent failure to maintain the railroad crossing and failure to warn motorists of a known dangerous condition. We note that the district court relied in part on the broad language defining “planning” in Collom v. City of St. Petersburg, 400 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), which we modified in City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1982).
As modified, we approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. ADKINS and EHRLICH, JJ., concur in result only.
SHAW, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
SHAW, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result but do not agree that “the district court opinion appears to hold that the failure to upgrade a railroad intersection and the failure to install traffic control devices are operational-level functions which are not immune from suit under Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979).” As I read the opinion, the district court held that DOT could not claim immunity under the label of “planning function” when, prior to the accident, DOT knew that the installed traffic control devices created an admittedly dangerous railroad crossing. On the facts of the case, the district court was simply rejecting the argument that everything is planned, therefore, everything is immune. As the district court put it, “this analysis is unhelpful because every operational activity undertaken by DOT must at some point entail planning, which would cloak the department in absolute immunity.” Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also Foley v. State Department of Transportation, 422 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), on this point of law, which rejected the same argument in another factual context.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985)…or takes control of property or an improvement, it has the same common law duty as a private person to properly maintain and operate the property. See Commercial Carrier (maintenance of traffic control devices); Department of Transportation v. Webb, 438 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1983) (maintenance of railroad crossing); Hodges v. City of Winter Park, 433 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So. 2d 416 (Fla.1984) (maintenance of road); Town of Belleair v. Taylor, 425 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (mainten…
-
Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…dmissible to impeach a witness’s testimony or to disprove the defendant's claimed lack of knowledge. Murray v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc., 429 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dept. of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 438 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1983); Hethcoat v. Chevron Oil Co., 383 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). As we view the complained of evidence, it was offered to show the continuation of an intentional course of conduct decided upon prior to the relevant period of plaintiff’s…
-
Gouty v. Schnepel, 795 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2001)…l liability for contribution to any other tortfeasor. . Schnepel also cites to City of Jacksonville v. Outlaw, 538 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Department of Transportation v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), approved as modified, 438 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1983), for the proposition that a finding of joint and several liability is not required under the setoff statute. However, Webb is easily distinguishable because all of the defendants, including those that settled, were found liable. Furthermo…
Previewing 3 of 18 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. Neilson, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1982)
- City OF ST. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1982)
- Collom v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 400 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Webb, 409 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Foley v. State, 422 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)