THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, APPELLANT,
v.
M.H., A SINGLE WOMAN, 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.
Miami Dade Community College appealed a $325,000 negligence judgment for inadequate campus security after a rape occurred on its premises. The appellate court affirmed, holding that while governmental entities have discretionary immunity regarding whether to operate a facility, once they choose to operate it, they owe a common law duty to do so safely.
A governmental entity has discretionary immunity regarding the decision to operate or not operate a facility, but once it decides to operate the facility, it owes a common law duty to operate it safely. MDCC's failure to provide adequate security was therefore actionable negligence, not a protected planning-level decision.
[1] A governmental entity that chooses to operate a facility owes a common law duty to operate that facility safely, even if the decision to operate the facility was discreti…
[2] A governmental entity's duty to operate a facility safely can extend to protecting invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks on its premises.
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“while a governmental entity may have discretionary authority to operate or not operate a particular facility, once the government entity decides to operate the facility there is a common law duty to operate the facility safely”
The core holding that discretionary immunity does not shield operational decisions about facility safety
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA rape occurred on the Miami Dade Community College campus. The victim, M.H., sued the District Board of Trustees for negligence based on inadequate s…
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 Security cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, the District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade Community College [MDCC], appeals an adverse judgment for $325,000.00 in which MDCC was found negligent for providing inadequate security on its campus. We affirm.
MDCC contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try this case and to enter a final judgment because MDCC is immune from suit. MDCC relies on Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), disapproved of by, Avallone v. Board of County Comm’rs of Citrus County, 493 So. 2d 1002, 1005 (Fla.1986), for the proposition that the decision as to how to secure the public’s safety at a facility operated by a governmental entity is a planning level decision which is protected from judicial scrutiny. Additionally, MDCC contends that the nature of the incident, a rape, most directly implicates MDCC’s function of protecting the public’s safety to which a common law duty of care has never attached. On the other hand, the plaintiff contends that Avallone, 493 So. 2d at 1005, mandates that while a governmental entity may have discretionary authority to operate or not operate a particular facility, once the government entity decides to operate the facility there is a common law duty to operate the facility safely.
We agree with the plaintiff. MDCC’s reliance on Relyea, 385 So. 2d at 1378, is misplaced since the Florida Supreme Court in Avallone, 493 So. 2d at 1005, stated that it disapproved Relyea. Thus, based on the authority of City of Jacksonville v. Mills, 544 So. 2d 190, 192 (Fla.1989) (city’s maintenance of courthouse fell within its property control functions so that slip and fall action was not barred by sovereign immunity), Avallone, 493 So. 2d at 1002, Ameijeiras v. Metropolitan Dade County, 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (landowner has duty to protect invitee on his premises from a criminal attack which is reasonably foreseeable), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1989) and Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding in part that conflicts in the evidence as to whether defendant had knowledge of prior crimes committed on defendant’s premises and as to whether defendant negligently trained, deployed, and su pervised its security staff are questions of fact for jury) we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regala Dennis v. City OF Tampa, 581 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ities of third persons which may result in negligent injury. It does not involve any issue concerning the obligation to protect citizens from criminal misconduct by third persons. Cf. District Bd. of Trustees of Miami Dade Community College v. M.H., 578 So. 2d 8 (Fla.3d DCA 1991). . The discussion of this problem by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in The Common Law is instructive from a historical perspective. When a case arises in which the standard of conduct, pure and simple, is submitted to the jury, the…
-
Cunningham v. City OF Dania & Broward Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 771 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ities of third persons which may result in negligent injury. It does not involve any issue concerning the obligation to protect citizens from criminal misconduct by third persons. Cf. District Bd. of Trustees of Miami Dade Community College v. M.H., 578 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). 581 So. 2d at 1350 n. 4. Here, there are allegations that because of the history of violent criminal acts in Modello Park, the City knew or should have known that visitors to the park faced a higher than normal risk of being in…
Authorities Cited
- Avallone v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Citrus Cnty., 493 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1986)
- Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Geraldo Ameijeiras and Eneyda Ameijeiras v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 534 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- City OF Jacksonville v. Mills, 544 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1989)
- Augustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 454 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)