TANGELA SMITH, A MINOR, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND DELORES WALKER AND DELORES WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the county, as a political subdivision, is immune from suit unless it waives immunity by acquiring insurance, which it had not done in this case.
Plaintiffs sued Dade County for personal injuries after a child was injured by a remaining traffic device base after the county removed the main devic…
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 Governmental Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal from a summary final judgment in favor of defendant, Dade County, in this personal injury action.
Prior to the date of the subject accident, the County removed a traffic control device located on the Northwest side of 22 Avenue just South of 69 Lane. However, the County failed to remove the base of the device and on October 14, 1974, while walking along the sidewalk, Tangela Smith sustained injury when the metal base penetrated her leg. Tangela Smith, a minor, by her mother Delores Walker and Delores Walker, individually filed suit against the County to recover damages. Subsequently, the County filed a motion for summary judgment along with an affidavit of Lucian C. Cantin, its insurance division manager, who stated that the County has no insurance covering this type of claim. After hearing argument, the trial judge granted the motion and entered summary judgment for the County. We affirm.
Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, enjoys governmental immunity from suit unless it waives such immunity by the acquisition of insurance.1 Kaulakis v. Boyd, 138 So. 2d 505 (Fla.1962); Arnold v. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1968); Brandeis v. Dade County, 226 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Schmauss v. Snoll, 245 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). It affirmatively appears from the record that there is no insurance coverage as plaintiffs’ complaint as well as Can-tin’s affidavit so states.
Affirmed.
. It is to be noted that the waiver of immunity statute, § 768.28, Fla.Stat. (1973) became effective on January 1, 1975 [§ 768.30, Fla.Stat. (1973)] and, thus, is not applicable to the instant case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McPHEE v. Dade Cnty., 362 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…Having additional powers of a municipality does not automatically give Dade County municipal responsibilities. This court has recently held, in three cases, that Dade County is not liable in tort. See and compare: Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 343 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Cruz v. Metropolitan Dade County, 350 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Cheney v. Dade County, 353 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the trial court is affirmed for any or all of the said reaso…
-
Collier v. Dade Cnty., 417 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…d continually enjoyed. Keggin v. Hills-borough County, 71 Fla. 356, 71 So. 372 (1916); McPhee v. Dade County, 362 So. 2d [*697] 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Jackson v. Palm Beach County, 360 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 343 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Schmauss v. Snoll, 245 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).2 As the Florida Supreme Court said in Keggin v. Hillsborough County: “While a county may in some respects resemble a municipality in that both organizations deal with public…
Authorities Cited
- Arnold v. Keither L. Shumpert, 217 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1968)
- Alfonsus D. Kaulakis v. Boyd, 138 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1962)
- Schmauss v. Snoll, 245 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Sol Brandeis and Lona Brandeis v. Dade Cnty., 226 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)