RICHARD JAMES RANDLES, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, AS SECRETARY OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Randles, a prison inmate, contracted HIV after being ordered to clean up blood spills without proper protective equipment. The trial court dismissed his negligence action against the Department of Corrections based on sovereign immunity, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations to invoke the statutory exception to sovereign immunity.
The complaint does not allege facts sufficient to satisfy any of the four statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity. The allegations regarding torn gloves and inadequate protective equipment, without more, do not affirmatively and clearly show that the officer acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or with wanton and willful disregard, nor do they show action outside the scope of employment.
[1] A trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo.
[2] A complaint must be examined solely within its four corners when reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“For the court to dismiss the complaint based on section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), the complaint must allege that the acts were taken by the employee (1) while acting outside the scope of his employment; (2) in bad faith; (3) with malicious purpose; or (4) in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.”
Establishes the four statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity that must be pled in the complaint
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile working in the medical/psychiatric ward at Zephyrhills Correctional Institution, Randles was ordered on three separate occasions to clean up mas…
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 Malicious Purpose cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Richard James Randles challenges the trial court’s order dismissing with prejudice his amended complaint against Michael Moore as Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections. We reverse.
While an inmate at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution, Randles was assigned to work in the medical/psychiatric ward of the prison. In three separate incidents, he was ordered to clean up massive amounts of blood from other inmates who had either accidentally wounded themselves or attempted suicide. He alleged that prior to these incidents, he had obtained normal results for blood tests when checked for HIV. His complaint alleged that the officer who ordered him to clean up the blood refused to provide the appropriate blood spill kits which included protective clothing, goggles and gloves. He further alleged that on one occasion, the gloves that were supplied were torn. A few months later, he began to feel tired and run down. Further blood testing resulted in a positive test for HIV. Randles filed the complaint alleging that the negligence of the officer was the cause of his illness.
The State moved to dismiss the complaint and argued that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Specifically, the State alleged that the officer’s action was criminal misconduct and that the State could not be held responsible for such misconduct. The trial court granted the motion with prejudice.
The standard to be applied when reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss is de novo. See W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297. (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Additionally, we must limit our examination to the four corners of the complaint. See Wilson v. News-Press Publishing Co., 738 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). An affirmative defense may be a basis for a motion to dismiss only if it appears within the four corners of the complaint. See Lowery v. Lowery, 654 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
For the court to dismiss the complaint based on section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), the complaint must allege that the acts were taken by the employee (1) while acting outside the scope of his employment; (2) in bad faith; (3) with malicious purpose; or (4) in a manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. A review of this complaint does not show any of these allegations.
The complaint alleges that on one occasion the gloves were torn but does not allege that the officer knew of the tear. The complaint alleges that Randles had cuts on his hand and suggests that the prison nurse could vouch for the allegation. However, these allegations do not “affirmatively and clearly show the applicability of the defense.” See Vause v. Bay Medical Center, 687 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marysol Sierra v. Associated Marine Insts., Inc., 850 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…rkers’ compensation immunity, sovereign immunity generally is an affirmative defense that may justify granting a motion to dismiss only when the complaint itself conclusively establishes its applicability. Vause, 687 So. 2d at 261; Randles v. Moore, 780 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Todaro, 632 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In light of this principle, our second observation is that Mrs. Sierra’s second amended complaint did not conclusively demonstrate that AMI and BCWI are entitl…
-
Mazer v. Orange Cnty., 811 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nt for writ of mandamus is reviewable [*859] by appeal.”) (citations omitted), approved, on other grounds, 720 So. 2d 216 (Fla.1998). The de novo standard of review is applied when considering an order granting a motion to dismiss. Randles v. Moore, 780 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Turning now to the merits of Mazer’s appeal, section 119.12(1) of the Public Records chapter provides: If a civil action is filed against an agency to enforce the provisions of this chapter and if the court determines that such…
-
Marzuk Al-Hakim v. Bennie R. Holder, 787 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ownership interest in the car. The order also noted that the value of the ear was insufficient to invoke circuit court jurisdiction. The de novo standard of review is applied when considering an order granting a motion to dismiss. Randles v. Moore, 780 So. 2d 158, 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We note that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a replevin action. Traces Fashion Group, Inc. v. C & C Mgmt., Inc., 763 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). It is evident that the circuit court was attempting to g…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Harley L. Vause v. BAY Med. Ctr., 687 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Wilson v. News-Press Publ'g Co., 738 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Lowery v. Lowery, 654 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)