RENE VAUGHN, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE SEGAL AND ELLIOT BERG, APPELLEES
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.
A county ordinance prohibiting lot junk and garbage does not create a private right of action for damages caused by encroaching trees.
Plaintiff sued her adjacent property owner for damages caused by encroaching trees, alleging a violation of a county ordinance constituted negligence …
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 Private Right Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rene Vaughn appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit against the adjacent property owner for damage caused by trees encroaching on plaintiff-appellant’s property. This court has previously held that there is no cause of action in such circumstances for nuisance, see Gallo v. Heller, 512 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), or negligence. See Richmond v. General Eng’g Enters. Co., 454 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Plaintiff contends, however, that there is a private right of action under chapter 19 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, entitled “Lot Junk, Garbage and Trash Clearing.” Plaintiff argues that a violation of this ordinance amounts to negligence per se and that she may base a lawsuit on the ordinance. We disagree.
Writing in the context of a statute, the Florida Supreme Court has said, “Today ... most courts generally look to the legislative intent of a statute to determine whether a private cause of action should be judicially inferred.” Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla.1994) (citations omitted); see also Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The same logic applies to a local ordinance. Here, the ordinance sets up a list of prohibited conditions, establishes a schedule of required maintenance, and provides for enforcement by the county authorities. See Metropolitan Dade County Code §§ 19-4 to -7. Civil penalties may be assessed through the county’s code enforcement procedures. See id. § 19-10. We find no intention to create a private cause of action under this county ordinance.
For the reasons stated, the dismissal of the plaintiffs action is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. Autozone Inv. Corp., 345 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Melendez v. Singletary, 644 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1994)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 543 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Avera v. State, 512 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Richmond v. Gen. Eng'g Enters. Co., 454 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)