EDNA OSORIO, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, 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.
Edna Osorio appealed summary judgment dismissing her negligence suit against Dade County for injuries from a car accident at an intersection. The district court reversed, holding that while Dade County's planning decisions regarding traffic sign placement were immune from tort liability, factual questions existed about whether operational implementation failures—specifically the improper placement of a warning sign—caused the accident.
While Dade County's planning decisions to erect a stop ahead sign and determine its location were immune from suit as planning functions, a material question of fact existed as to whether the workers' deviation from the work order and misplacement of the sign constituted a legal cause of the accident, precluding summary judgment.
[1] A governmental entity's planning decisions regarding traffic control devices are generally immune from tort liability.
[2] The operational implementation of a governmental entity's planning decisions, even if compliant with manual requirements, can give rise to tort liability if negligently p…
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“Appellee's decision to erect a stop ahead sign, as required by the manual, and the further decision regarding the proper location for the sign clearly constituted planning decisions that are immune from suit.”
Establishes that governmental entities are protected from tort liability for planning-level decisions regarding traffic control infrastructure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsorio was injured in an automobile accident at an intersection in Hialeah, Florida. A large ficus tree obstructed the stop sign at the intersection, …
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 Dangerous Condition cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, JOHN W., Associate Judge.
Appellant, Edna Osorio, appeals an adverse final summary judgment. Appellant suffered personal injuries an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of East First Avenue and East Seventeenth Street in Hialeah, Florida. She filed suit against Dade County and alleged that Dade County negligently failed to maintain the existing stop sign and failed to warn her of a known dangerous condition at the intersection. She further asserted that mere compliance with the mandatory provisions of the manual on uniform traffic control devices does not bar an action for negligence in the installation of the signs. in Appellant claimed that she had never driven through this intersection prior to the evening of the accident and that she did not see the “stop ahead” sign or the stop sign located at the corner of East First Avenue. Appellant presented evidence that a large ficus tree trunk obstructed the stop sign located at the intersection, which necessitated the placement of a stop ahead sign. She also presented evidence that notwithstanding a work order issued by appellee’s Department of Traffic and Transportation directing the exact placement of the stop ahead sign, the sign was actually installed in a different location.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine questions of fact as to the negligence of appellee exist. Appellee contends that the decisions concerning the placement of the stop sign and the stop ahead sign constituted planning functions which remain immune from tort liability. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). Appellee also argues that the actual placement of the sign technically complies with the minimum mandatory provisions of the manual on uniform traffic control devices, thereby conclusively establishing its absence of negligence.
When the visibility of a stop sign is restricted, the manual only requires erection of a stop ahead sign “in advance of” the stop sign. The record contains the engineering study made of the intersection and the work order directing placement of the stop ahead sign at 210 feet east of the stop sign and four feet north of the roadway. Appellee’s decision to erect a stop ahead sign, as required by the manual, and the further decision regarding the proper location for the sign clearly constituted planning decisions that are immune from suit. Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1982). However, in carrying out the operational activity of installing the stop ahead sign, the workers failed to implement the planning decision. Instead the stop ahead sign was installed 301 feet east of the stop sign and 10 feet north of the roadway. Although the actual placement of the sign fell within the recommendations of the manual, a question of material fact exists as to whether the worker’s deviation from the work order and misplacement of the sign constituted a legal cause of the accident.
Therefore we reverse the summary final judgment in favor of the appellee and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles "Chuck" Seth Scott and Linda Scott v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., 752 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…speed limit and the decision to use a one-lane road was a planning level decision, and hence was immune from suit, but the design and construction of a median strip was an operational act and was actionable); and Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County, 459 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(misplaced installation of “stop ahead” sign in deviation from work order was an operational activity). DOT argues in response that it did not owe the Scotts the duty to build the intersection according to plans drawn by it, and i…
-
Miller v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 508 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…a bridge is a planning level decision); City of Delray Beach v. Watts, 461 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985) (placement and location of dumpster is a planning level decision); Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County, 459 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. dismissed, 469 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1985) (decision on where to place a stop sign is planning level function). Hyde v. Florida Department of Transportation, 452 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (failure to install a guardrail is a…
-
Robinson v. State, 465 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e Road 542.3 At the very minimum, questions of material fact remain regarding the adequacy of the warnings posted during the maintenance or repair operations; therefore the entry of summary judgment was error. Cf. Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County, 459 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Department of Transportation v. Webb, 438 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla.1983) (the failure to place warning signs at a railroad crossing known to be dangerous is an operational-level function). In so stating, we are not unaware…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)