J. K. DAVIS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
RAYMOND ANTHONY WATSON AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Watson recovered a judgment against wildlife officer Davis and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission for a gunshot wound. The court affirmed the judgment against Davis but reversed the judgment against the Commission, holding that a state agency cannot waive sovereign immunity by intervening in a lawsuit, as only the legislature possesses the power to waive such immunity.
The Commission did not waive its sovereign immunity by intervening in the suit. Even if the Commission had purported to waive its immunity, it was powerless to do so because only the legislature has the authority to waive the state's sovereign immunity under the Florida Constitution and Florida Supreme Court precedent.
[1] A state agency's intervention in a lawsuit does not operate as a waiver of its sovereign immunity.
[2] The sovereign immunity of the state may only be waived by general law, not by special or local law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the state's immunity may not be waived by special or local law”
Establishes the constitutional limitation on waiver of sovereign immunity, which can only be done by general law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson was shot by J.K. Davis, a wildlife officer employed by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (a state agency). Watson initially sued only Da…
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 Waiver Of Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, ..Judge.
Appellee Watson recovered a judgment against appellants Davis and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, arising out of a gunshot wound inflicted upon said appellee by appellant Davis, a wildlife officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Initially, Watson sued only Davis.
However, during the pendency of the suit the Commission, by and through the Attorney General, moved to intervene as a defendant. After an order was entered authorizing intervention appellee Watson filed an amended complaint naming Davis and the Commission as defendants. The Commission answered and affirmatively asserted immunity except to the extent of applicable liability insurance, as provided in § 455.06, F.S.1973.
On January 10, 1972, the Commission moved the court to limit its liability to the extent of applicable liability insurance coverage. This motion was denied as being premature. Prior to trial the court determined the Commission was not covered by liability insurance for the incident involved in this case. (Watson has not directed a cross appeal at this determination.) Verdict and judgment were ultimately returned against both appellants.
We have reviewed the record with appellants’ assigned errors in mind and find it free from error except as to the entry of judgment against the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. In concluding that judgment should not Have been entered against the Commission, we have given serious consideration to Watson’s contention that the Commission waived its immunity as an agency of the state by intervening in the suit.
Least importantly, we do not believe there was any express or implied waiver of immunity by the Commission. It consistently maintained in the pleadings that its liability was limited to the extent of liability insurance coverage as provided in § 455.06, F.S.1973. More importantly, even if the Commission had purported to waive its immunity as an agency of the state, it was powerless to do so. Article 10, Sec. 13 of the Florida Constitution, West’s F.S.A., provides that the sovereign immunity of the state may be waived by general law. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that the state’s immunity may not be waived by special or local law. State ex rel. Davis v. Love, 99 Fla. 333, 126 So. 374 (1930); Arnold v. Shumpert, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 116. So it seems that the power to waive the state’s immunity is vested exclusively in the legislature. Suits v. Hillsborough County, 147 Fla. 53, 2 So. 2d 353 (1941).
Therefore the intervention by the Commission through the Attorney General did not operate as a waiver of the Commission’s immunity as an agency of the state. Compare Dunn v. Schmid, 239 Minn. 559, 60 N.W. 2d 14 (1953); State v. Hall, Mo.1965, 389 S.W. 2d 798; Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 108 N.W. 2d 201 (1961); Department of Pub. Safety v. Great S.
W. Warehouses, Tex.Civ.App. 1962, 352 S.W. 2d 493.
Accordingly, the judgment against the appellant J. K. Davis is affirmed and the judgment against the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, an agency of the State of Florida, is reversed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1982)…sion, neither party is totally correct. Not only was Talmadge overbroad in its assessment of complete liability of public employees, but it also relied upon a case which did not explicitly involve the issue of official immunity. See Davis v. Watson, 318 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1976). On the other hand, Rupp and Stasco rely on equally suspect cases. They cite Loucks v. Adair, 312 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 33 (Fla.1976),13 which does indeed…
-
Dist. Sch. Bd. OF Lake Cnty. v. Talmadge, 381 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1980)…aiving the state’s [*700] sovereign immunity in tort actions within certain express limitations. Prior to the enactment of the waiver statute, of course, Florida’s public employees had been liable for their tortious acts. See, e.g., Davis v. Watson, 318 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1976). Consequently, section 768.28 led to the coexistence of both governmental and employee liability, creating what has been termed a new “problem of coordination.”1 Subsection 768.28(9) is the…
-
Erwine v. Gamble, 343 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…Resources, 339 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1976), (Opinion filed November 24, 1976) recently decided by the Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that the complaint was properly dismissed against all of the state related defendants. See also Davis v. Watson, 318 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The judgment to the extent that it dismisses the complaint against the architects is reversed; in all other respects it is affirmed. McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON, J, concur.…
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
- State of Fla. on the relation of Fred H. Davis v. The Honorable E. C. Love, 99 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1930)
- Arnold v. Keither L. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1968)
- Suits v. Hillsborough Cnty., 147 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1941)