ANDREA BRADFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, 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.
Andrea Bradford sued Metropolitan Dade County for negligence after being attacked by a mentally disturbed woman who had disappeared from a county-monitored residential facility. The court affirmed judgment for the county, holding that law enforcement and the county's mental health agency owed no common law duty to protect an individual member of the public from such an attack.
The county owed no common law duty to Bradford. Law enforcement owes a general duty to protect the public as a whole, not individual members of the public, and any duty owed by MHAP would be for the benefit of the mentally disturbed persons the agency is assigned to monitor, not third parties.
[1] Law enforcement officials and court-appointed mental health agencies do not owe a common law duty to protect individual members of the public from harm caused by individu…
[2] A general duty owed by police to protect the public as a whole does not extend to a specific duty to protect an individual from a foreseeable harm caused by a third party…
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 police owe a general duty to protect the public as a whole; any duty owed by MHAP would be for the benefit of the mentally disturbed persons the agency is assigned to monitor.”
Establishes the distinction between general public duties and specific individual duties, forming the basis for the court's holding that no duty was owed to Bradford.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradford was attacked by a woman who had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity on an aggravated assault and battery charge. The trial…
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 Discretionary Function Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andrea Bradford appeals from a judgment on the pleadings which terminated her negligence action in favor of Metropolitan Dade County on the basis of sovereign immunity. The complaint alleged that Bradford was the victim of an attack by a mentally disturbed woman who on a number of occasions had been acquitted of charges of criminal assault. Prior to the incident in this case, the woman had been prosecuted on an aggravated felonious assault and battery charge for which she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. As a result of that case, the trial court had placed her in the residential custody of a boarding home where she was to receive medication to control her condition. That court also directed the county-operated Mental Health Administrator’s Program (MHAP) to monitor the woman and report her progress to the court. Approximately seven and one-half months before the attack on Bradford, the woman disappeared from the home. A capias was issued following her departure, but it was not served on the woman until after her attack on Bradford. Bradford filed suit against the county alleging negligence on the part of the public safety department for failure to execute on the arrest warrant and investigate the woman’s whereabouts and on the part of the MHAP for failure to insure that the woman received her medication and psychiatric treatment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the county.
The police owe a general duty to protect the public as a whole; any duty owed by MHAP would be for the benefit of the mentally disturbed persons the agency is assigned to monitor. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on the ground that the complaint failed to allege any common law duty owed by either the law enforcement officials or the court-appointed mental health agency to provide protection to an individual. See Everton v. Willard, 468 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1985); Reddish v. Smith, 468 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1985); Trianon Park Condominium Assoc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985); see also Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1985) (city immune from liability where dog, confined on private property, escaped and injured child); Zock v. Miller, 505 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (court-appointed psychiatrist enjoys quasi-judicial immunity from liability); Ursin v. Law Enforcement Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (sheriff is immune from liability where prisoner escapes and injures individual), affirmed, 469 So. 2d 1382 (Fla.1985); Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA) (decision to grant or withhold parole is a discretionary function), review denied, 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981); Cawthon v. Coffer, 264 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (immunity from liability exists for actions arising out of judicial proceedings). Cf. State, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Yamuni, 498 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (statutory duty owed by HRS to provide protective services for abused or neglected children).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Corr. v. McGHEE, 653 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…that the decisions in the case at bar and Vann are consistent with those in Parker v. Murphy, 510 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); George v. Hitek Community Control Corp., 639 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); and Bradford v. Metropolitan Dade County, 522 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). I am convinced, however, that these holdings are inconsistent with Florida’s waiver of sovereign immunity statute, section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1989), as well as certain general rules of law enunciated by the Florida Supreme…1 / 2
-
Jankowski v. Wille, 600 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Everton v. Willard, 468 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1985); Bradford v. Metropolitan Dade County, 522 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Parker v. Murphy, 510 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). LETTS, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ concur.…
-
State v. Vann, 650 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…o duty existed in a case where it was alleged that the Community Control Corporation negligently supervised a community contro-lee who forcibly raped a woman. A situation analogous to the instant action arose in Bradford v. Metropolitan Dade County, 522 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), wherein plaintiff was the victim of an attack by an escaped mentally disturbed woman who had been in a residential boarding house operated by the Mental Health Administrator’s Program (MHAP). The third district court, citing Tria…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1985)
- Azor J. Everton, Jr. v. Willard, 468 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1985)
- J.R. Reddish & the Dep't of Corr. of the State of Fla. v. Smith, 468 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1985)
- Leila Carter v. City OF Stuart & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 468 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1985)
- Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ursin v. LAW Enf't Ins. Co., Ltd., 450 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Ursin v. LAW Enf't Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 1985)
- Cawthon v. Coffer, 264 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- State v. Yamuni, 498 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Velazguez v. State, 505 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)