BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM RHODES, JR., HORACE BELL, DELBERT KREUL, MICHAEL BLOCKER, AND WILLIAM HURD, APPELLEES

Fla. 4th DCA | 1993-09-01
No. 92-3307
DELL, C.J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.
624 So. 2d 319 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that inverse condemnation does not apply to accidental destruction of property during a government program absent a willful taking.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued for inverse condemnation after their bees were destroyed by a county mosquito control spray program. The spraying was potentially an e…

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.


Opinion of the Court
STONE, Judge.

STONE, Judge.

We reverse a partial summary judgment in an action for inverse condemnation holding the county liable for damages incident to the destruction of Plaintiffs’ bees in executing a mosquito control spray program. There is evidence that the mosquito spraying was an emergency measure designed to control an encephalitis crisis.

Appellees correctly assert that inverse condemnation applies to personal property. See State, Dep’t of Agric. and Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1243 (Fla.2d DCA 1989), decision approved, in part, 570 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1990); In re: Forfeiture of 1976 Kenworth Tractor Trailer Truck, Altered VIN 2433 40 M, 576 So. 2d 261 (Fla.1990). However, we deem these authorities inapposite as each involved a willful seizure or “taking.” Here, there is no demonstrated willful taking. Cf. Conner v. Reed Bros., Inc., 567 So. 2d 515 (Fla.2d DCA 1990).

On the record before the court, the Plaintiffs’ loss, if proved, appears to be accidental. There is no indication that if the county killed the bees, it did so intentionally, or that it even knew of their existence. Unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that a taking of constitutional dimension has occurred, any recovery would be limited to Plaintiffs’ companion claim of negligence. See Rabin v. Lake Worth Drainage Dist., 82 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 958, 76 S.Ct. 348, 100 L.Ed. 833 (1956).

Therefore, the partial summary judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

DELL, C.J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Basore OF Fla., Inc., 723 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
    …378. Here, the destruction of the crop was a consequential damage resulting from the temporary flooding and not a constitutional taking. Further, although we recognize that personal property can be the subject of a taking, Broward County v. Rhodes, 624 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we do question whether that principal is applicable when crop damage is associated with injury to land not taken. See Rabin v. Lake Worth Drainage Dist., 82 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1955), cert. denied 350 U.S. 958, 76 S.Ct. 348, 100 L.E…
    1 / 2
  • Lewis v. Cnty. OF Orange, 772 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
    …operty removed in the face of the demolition notice. Even if personal property that should not have been destroyed was destroyed — a fact having no support in the record, the County’s actions did not amount to a taking. See Broward County v. Rhodes, 624 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). It was not error to enter summary judgment. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, C.J., W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw