ALMETA WATERS AND MOSE WATERS, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, GEORGE STRINGER, AND T. A. BUCHANAN, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, 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.
Plaintiff-appellant Almeta Waters brought a civil action against the sheriff and his deputy for unlawful arrest, excessive force resulting in a broken arm, wrongful imprisonment, and denial of medical attention. The court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that Waters stated sufficient facts to proceed, as sheriffs are civilly liable for deputies' tortious acts committed by virtue of office.
The court held that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to withstand the motion to dismiss. Sheriffs are civilly liable for acts and omissions of their deputies when those acts transpire within the scope of employment and by virtue of office, and whether plaintiff can prove her claims is a matter for trial, not dismissal.
“It has long been the rule in Florida that sheriffs are civilly liable for the acts and omissions of their deputies if those acts or omissions transpire within the scope of a deputy's employment and by virtue of the office.”
Establishes the foundational principle of sheriff liability for deputy conduct, the central legal issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlmeta Waters alleged that Deputy Stringer unlawfully arrested her using excessive force that broke her arm. She further alleged wrongful imprisonment…
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 Unlawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant brought this action against the sheriff, T. A. Buchanan, Stringer, one of his deputies, and Dade County. The complaint alleged in substance that Stringer unlawfully arrested plaintiff and in the process, by use of excessive force, broke her arm. It was further alleged that plaintiff was wrongfully imprisoned, denied medical attention, shackled to a bed, and not informed of her alleged crime. The complaint makes additional allegations which we deem unnecessary to delineate.
The lower court sustained the sheriff's motion to dismiss for failure to' state a cause of action, thus giving rise to this appeal. After carefully reviewing the allegations of the compaint, we conclude that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to withstand the motion to dismiss. It has long been the rule in Florida that sheriffs are civilly liable for the acts and omissions of their deputies if those acts or omissions transpire within the scope of a deputy’s employment and by virtue of the office. Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224. Under § 30.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., “[s]heriffs may appoint deputies * * * and for the (the deputies’) neglect and default * * * in the execution of their office the sheriff shall be responsible.” The principle under which the sheriff is held answerable for the actions of his deputies is that while acting officially, the deputies are the sheriff acting. Axiomatic is the proposition that sheriffs cannot be held accountable for all actions of their deputies during the course of their employment. Hence, the line between acts done under color of office and those done by virtue of office has been drawn. Malone v. Howell, supra.
Tortious acts committed by virtue of office are said to involve an abuse of power, whereas tortious acts committed under color of office involve usurpation of power. Malone v. Howell, supra; Holland v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709.
In this opinion we do not attempt to reach the merits of plaintiff’s cause. However, we cannot say as a matter of law that considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff under none of the circumstances alleged in her complaint can she sustain an action against the sheriff either under the *507•common law of Florida or the statute, § 30.-07, supra. Whether she can show that she was in fact injured as alleged and such' injuries were incurred at the hands of the sheriff’s deputy acting in the course of employment and by virtue of office are matters which we are not called upon to decide at this time.
Accordingly, the decision of the lower •court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendez v. Blackburn, 205 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…this allegation that prompted the trial Judge to deny the Sheriff’s motion to dismiss. The complaint, by the inclusion of such averment, stated a cause of action against the Sheriff. Goodrich v. Lawrence, supra; Waters v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 505. But the proofs submitted upon the motion for summary judgment completely negated the quoted allegation. Such allegation was crucial and indispensable to plaintiffs’ cause of action. And when the proofs left no genuine issue of this material fact,…
-
Posey v. S. D. (Dave) Starr and B. F. Tanner, 208 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…tice Terrell clarifies the opinion by stating that only upon those acts of a deputy that involve an abuse of power, as distinct from a usurpation of power, will the sheriff be held legally liable. In the case of Waters v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 505, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, held: “ * * * It has long been the rule in Florida that sheriffs are civilly liable for the acts and omissions of their deputies if those acts or omissions transpire within the scope of a de…
-
Mendez v. Blackburn, 226 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1969)…nt to, the acts complained of in the posture in which they were committed here, there is a conflict with the decision of this Court in Holland v. Mayes, supra, and, also, with the decision of another district court of appeal in Waters v. Dade County 169 So. 2d 505 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1964). We, therefore, proceed to the merits. We must decide whether the courts below were correct in holding as a matter of law that a jury could not find respondent Sheriff liable for the acts of his deputies on the basis of th…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ada Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1939)
- Spessard L. Holland v. Mayes, 155 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1944)