AGNES WAITE, AND GEORGE S. WAITE, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Agnes and George Waite appealed a summary judgment against them in a negligence suit against Dade County arising from an automobile accident on a county bridge. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding no actionable negligence by the County and applying governmental immunity and statutory notice requirements.
The County was not guilty of actionable negligence; the sole proximate cause of injury was the other automobile operator's negligence. Additionally, Dade County is immune from suit as a political subdivision performing governmental functions, and the appellants failed to comply with the statutory requirement to present their claim to the County Commissioners within one year.
“the Court then ruled that the County was not guilty of any actionable negligence and the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the operator of another automobile.”
Establishes the trial court's factual finding that eliminated any negligence liability for the County
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Waites were injured in an automobile accident on a bridge in Dade County. The plaintiff's attorney argued that the County's lack of precaution—spe…
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 Actionable Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered by the Court without a jury against the appellants as a result of a pretrial conference. At this conference the primary investigation was to determine from the facts whether or not the defendant, Dade County, was guilty of actionable negligence and the judgment was based upon these facts. In addition to the questions considered at the pre-trial conference, the answer of the defendant raised the question of immunity of the County from suit on account of the negligence alleged and the failure of the appellants to present their claim to the County Commissioners as required by law. F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A. requires that any claim against a county be presented to the County Commissioners within one year after the alleged cause of action has accrued.
The pre-trial conference was held pursuant to 30 F.S.A. Rule 16 of the Florida Common Law Rules. The facts in connection with the accident were fully developed at the pre-trial conference. After a discussion of the facts, the attorney for the plaintiffs then stated to the Court that in his opinion the proximate and prime reason for the injury was the lack of precaution which should have been taken by the 'County with respect to that area, because had there been barriers placed on a two-foot strip for pedestrians on this bridge, no injury would have occurred to the plaintiff. The Court then ruled that the County was not guilty of any actionable negligence and the sole proximate cause of the injury was the negligence of the operator of another automobile. Thereupon a summary judgment was entered for the defendant.
The record in this case fully justified the judgment. Hillsborough County v. Sutton, 150 Fla. 601, 8 So. 2d 401.
It was insisted by the appellants that the County was guilty of actionable negligence by reason of the provisions of Sections 341.77 and 348.10, F.S.A. These sections of the statute are in the interest of the traveling public and impose certain discretionary powers upon the State Road Department. They do not place any liabil ity upon the County for actionable negligence in failing to exercise any of the discretionary powers or duties therein mentioned.
In addition to the absence of any facts or evidence showing actionable negligence against the County, the other defenses should not be ignored. In this case it appears that the suit arose from functions being performed by Dade County in its governmental capacity; that Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is immune from suit as a result of the facts disclosed. It further appears that the appellants did not within one year after the alleged cause of action accrued present their claim to the County Commissioners of Dade County, as required by F.S. § 95.08, F.S.A. Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1956)…e plaintiff’s deposition and the admissions made at the conference, that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We sanctioned such procedure in Waite v. Dade County, Fla., 74 So. 2d 681. There the facts had been fully developed at the pretrial conference, whereupon the trial judge, who was convinced that no genuine factual issue remained, entered judgment for the defendant.. The same procedure was presented to us earlier in Hillsbo…
-
Raphael v. Koretzky, 102 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…iry then must be whether the pleadings on file together with the admissions of counsel for the plaintiff at the pre-trial conference affirmatively show that the plaintiff could not recover in the event of a trial. See Waite v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 681. It is necessary, first, to examine the allegations of the complaint. In order to set forth an action for negligence, a plaintiff must allege ultimate facts showing the relationship out of which a duty is implied by law and sufficient acts or omiss…
-
Green v. Manly Constr. Co., 159 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…onference provided at least ten days advance notice of the conference has been given. F.R.C.P. 1.16. See and compare Roberts v. Braynon, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 623, 626; Cook v. Navy Point, Inc., Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 532; Waite v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 681; Hillsborough County v. Sutton, 1942, 150 Fla. 601, 8 So. 2d 401, 402. It is not disputed that the pre-trial conference was held pursuant to due notice, and the recitation in the judgment confirms the fact Roberts v. Braynon, supra, was a personal…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hillsborough Cnty. v. Sutton, 150 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1942)