CALVIN FOX, AS FATHER OF RICHARD FOX, A/K/A RICKEY FOX, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
TROUP BROS., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a county as a defendant in a tort action under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The court found that the county was acting merely as an agent for the State Road Department in acquiring property for a state road, and therefore was not liable.
No, Dade County cannot be held liable because it was merely a conduit for the State Road Department and acted solely as its agent in acquiring the property for the state road.
“having taken judicial knowledge of the fact that the real property involved is a part of the Palmetto By-Pass, which has been designated as a State Road, and having taken further cognizance of Florida Highway Code, Fourth Part, particularly § 337.28(2) and § 337.29(2), Florida Statutes, 1959 [F.S.A.], was and is of the opinion that the defendant Dade County was merely a conduit for the acquiring of title to the real property by the State Road Department, and was acting solely as the agent of the State Road Department under the applicable State Law for the acquiring of said title”
The trial court's reasoning for dismissing the county, which the appellate court adopted.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued a contractor and Dade County for wrongful death under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The property in question was part of a stat…
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 Attractive Nuisance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court which, on Dade County’s motion, dismissed the county as a defendant. The action was in tort under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The county and the defendant contractor were allegedly in possession. The trial court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the county, saying:
“ * * * having taken judicial knowledge of the fact that the real property involved is a part of the Palmetto By-Pass, which has been designated as a State Road, and having taken further cognizance of Florida Highway Code, Fourth Part, particularly § 337.28(2) and § 337.29(2), Florida Statutes, 1959 [F.S.A.], was and is of the opinion that the defendant Dade County was merely a conduit for the acquiring of title to the real property by the State Road Department, and was acting solely as the agent of the State Road Department under the applicable State Law for the acquiring of said title, * * *
We agree, and affirm the order appealed.
Affirmed.