JAMES W. ROSE, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a conflict between two appellate courts regarding municipal liability for intentional torts by police officers. The Court found a conflict and quashed the lower court's decision, remanding for reconsideration based on its related ruling.
Yes, a municipality can be liable for intentional torts committed by its police officer employees while acting within the scope of their employment.
“The District Court here held that a municipality is not liable for intentional torts committed by police officer employees while acting within the scope of their employment.”
This quote describes the holding of the lower appellate court that was under review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Second District Court of Appeal held that a municipality is not liable for intentional torts committed by police officers within the scope of thei…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for a writ of certiorari we are requested to review a decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, because of an alleged conflict on the same point of law with the decision of another Court of Appeal. Rose v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, et al., 163 So.2d 889.
The District Court here held that a municipality is not liable for intentional torts committed by police officer employees while acting within the scope of their employment. It is claimed that this decision collides with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Simpson v. City of Miami, et al., 155 So.2d 829.
The two decisions do conflict directly on. the same point of law. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction.
By our opinion in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So.2d 435, filed 17th day of February, 1965, we have approved the decision of the Third District in Simpson v. Miami, Fla.App., 155 So.2d 829. In view of our discussion there, repetition here would be superfluous.
The writ is granted. The opinion under-review is quashed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeal, Second District, for disposition in accordance with the views ■ expressed by us in City of Miami v. Simp--son, supra.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and. ERVIN, JJ., concur.
dissents, see dissent in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So.2d. 435, this day filed.
CALDWELL, J.,
dissents, see dissent in City of Miami v. Simpson, Fla., 172 So. 2d. 435, this day filed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Roce Simpson, 172 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1965)
- Roce Simpson v. City OF Miami, 155 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Rose v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 163 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)