WANNALL
v.
GADSDEN CNTY. EMERGENCY MED. SERVS.
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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment for emergency medical services, holding they owed no duty of care to individuals injured by a patient they released. The court reasoned that the foreseeable zone of risk did not extend to the injured parties.
No, Gadsden County Emergency Medical Services did not owe a duty of care to the Appellants. The foreseeable zone of risk did not extend to the Appellants.
[1] A duty of care in tort law exists only when the plaintiff falls within the foreseeable zone of risk created by the defendant's conduct or operations.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We find any foreseeable zone of risk did not extend to Appellants.”
Establishes the core reasoning for the lack of duty.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were injured by a patient who had been released by Gadsden County Emergency Medical Services. The Appellants sued the emergency medical ser…
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 Special Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D18-1654 _____________________________
NANCY WANNALL and GARY WANNALL,
Appellants,
v. GADSDEN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, and TOWN OF HAVANA,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County. Francis Allman, Judge.
March 20, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees. We find any foreseeable zone of risk did not extend to Appellants. Accordingly, Appellees did not owe a duty of care to Appellants, and we affirm the trial court’s order. See Parker v. Murphy, 510 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (affirming summary judgment in favor of the sheriff after a prisoner twice escaped and attacked appellant and her husband holding there was no special relationship between the sheriff and appellant, and thus, no duty of care).
2
AFFIRMED.
MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Marie A. Mattox and James Garrity of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants. William B. Armistead and Gwendolyn P. Adkins of Coppins Monroe, P.A., Tallahassee; and Jeff F. Dodson of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appelles.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Krueger v. The Sch. Bd. OF Hernando Cnty., 510 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)