RANDALL JERROLD VANN, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of an escaped prisoner because the department owes only a general duty to protect the public as a whole, not a specific duty to protect individual citizens from escaped inmates.
The Department of Corrections may not be held liable for the criminal acts of an escaped prisoner. The department owes only a general duty to protect the public as a whole, not a specific duty to protect individual citizens from harm caused by escaped inmates.
[1] The Department of Corrections cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of an escaped prisoner when no common law duty is owed to protect a particular individual from s…
[2] A governmental duty to protect its citizens is a general duty to the public as a whole, and the existence of only a general duty does not create a duty of care to an indi…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A governmental duty to protect its citizens is a general duty to the public as a whole, and where there is only a general duty to protect the public, there is no duty of care to an individual citizen which may result in liability.”
Establishes the foundational principle that government agencies owe general duties to the public, not specific duties to individual citizens
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn escaped prisoner committed criminal acts against an individual. The victim or affected party brought suit against the Department of Corrections see…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the following question passed upon by the First District Court of Appeal and certified to be of great public importance:
WHETHER THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MAY BE HELD LIABLE AS A RESULT OF THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF AN ESCAPED PRISONER?
State Dep’t of Corrections v. Vann, 650 So. 2d 658, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we answer the certified question in the negative.
The issue in this case is whether the Department of Corrections (the department) may be held liable for the criminal acts of an escaped prisoner.1 The district court resolved this issue by holding that the department could not be held liable for the criminal acts of an escaped prisoner because no common law duty was owed by the department to protect a particular individual from such potential harm. In a thorough and well-reasoned discussion, Judge Wolf predicated the district court’s decision, in substantial part, on principles already established by this Court in Everton v. Willard, 468 So. 2d 936 (Fla.1985), Trianon Park Condominium Association v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912 (Fla.1985), and Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 574 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1991). The court’s holding rests on the following principle, which was previously stated in Everton: “A governmental duty to protect its citizens is a general duty to the public as a whole, and where there is only a general duty to protect the public, there is no duty of care to an individual citizen which may result in liability.” Vann, 650 So. 2d at 660 (quoting Everton, 468 So. 2d at 938). Additionally, although dicta, we noted in Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 574 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1991), that “the department of corrections has no specific1 duty to protect individual members of the public from escaped inmates.” Id. at 102-03 n. 1. Because Judge Wolfs opinion accurately reflects our views on this issue, we adopt it as our own.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the negative and approve the district court’s decision.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . For a complete recitation of the facts, we refer the reader to the district court opinion. See Vann, 650 So. 2d at 659-60.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009)…y power to enforce compliance with the laws duly enacted by a governmental body is a matter of governance, for which there never has been a common law duty of care.”); see also Dep’t of Corr. v. Vann, 650 So. 2d 658, 660-62 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 662 So. 2d 339 (Fla.1995) (law-enforcement officers owe a general duty to the public at large to capture escaped prisoners who are not currently within their general control); Carter v. City of Stuart, 468 So. 2d 955, 957 (Fla.1985) (addressing the means of enforc…
-
Cal Henderson v. Isac B. Bowden, 737 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1999)…cement officer's duty to protect the citizens is a general duty owed to the public as a whole.”), and that a governmental entity has no duty to protect the general public from the lawless acts of third parties. See Vann v. Department of Corrections, 662 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla.1995). . In Everton, this Court stated: We note as we did in Trianon that this is a narrow issue relating to the discretionary judgmental decision of making an arrest under the police power of a governmental entity. Everton, 468 So. 2d…
-
Andrews v. The Fla. Parole Comm'n & The Fla. Dep't of Corr., 768 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…the part of the Commission or DOC for the benefit of any private person, and thus afford no basis for an action by any aggrieved individual for alleged negligence or errors in their application or enforcement. See Vann v. Department of Corrections, 662 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla.1995) (“A governmental duty to protect its citizens is a general duty to the public as a whole, and where there is only a general duty to protect the public, there is no duty of care to an individual citizen which may result in liability.”…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Whaley, 574 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Vann, 650 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)