GEORGE W. ZINK, IV, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AN AGENCY 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.
The court reversed summary judgment for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in a foster care injury case, holding that factual disputes regarding the agency's duty to inspect and monitor foster placements preclude summary disposition.
Summary judgment was improper where factual disputes exist regarding whether the defendant breached its duty to inspect the foster home and monitor the child's care.
[1] Summary judgment is improper in a foster care negligence case where material factual disputes exist regarding the state agency's duty to inspect the foster home and its k…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child in foster care was shot by the natural child of the foster parents. The appellant alleges the Department of HRS breached its duty of care by f…
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 Breach Of Duty Of Care cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary final judgment in a personal injury case. Appellant states the issues as follows:
I. DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF HRS HAVE AN ABSOLUTE, NON-DELE-GABLE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF CHILDREN PLACED IN ITS LEGAL CUSTODY BY THE COUNTY?
II. IS THE DEPARTMENT OF HRS ABSOLUTELY LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS AND INACTIONS OF FOSTER PARENTS WITH WHOM IT PLACES CHILDREN PLACED IN ITS LEGAL CUSTODY BY THE COURTS?
The answer to those questions of course has to be no. Few, if any, matters in the law are absolute. The issue better stated is whether the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for the defendant.
Appellant was injured in a foster care house when a natural child of the foster parents shot him with a shot gun. Appellant alleges appellee breached a duty of care in failing to inspect the house and monitor the care and treatment of appellant while he was in foster care. He alleges he was placed in a dangerous environment and appellee breached its duty of care and is liable for the injuries as a result of that breach. Appellee says it lacked knowledge of the dangerous situation and otherwise did nothing to contribute to the shooting. There is a factual dispute. This cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
The judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings,
REVERSED and REMANDED,
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.