If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!cSwimming Pool Injuries or Death in Florida: Premises Liability Personal Injuries and Miami-Dade County’s Duty to Protect
The swimming pool liability attorneys at Alitowski & Moore provide Florida negligence law updates daily. If you have been insured due to the fault of another in Miami-Dade, contact our attorneys for a free consultation.
Can a Miami-Dade County can be held liable for a citizen getting attacked while on a public street waiting to board a bus? In Miami-Dade County v. Miller, 19 So.3d. 1037 (3rd D.C.A.), Mr. Miller filed a law suit in state court alleging that he was injured as a result of an attack and that the county should have had police near the bus station to protect him. The state court denied the motion for summary judgment by the county. Id. Thus, the county appealed and the appellate court reversed holding that the county did not owe Mr. Miller a duty to protect him. Id.
Mr. Miller was attacked by an unknown person while waiting for a bus near the Dadeland South Metrorail Station. Id. The county had a contract with Wackenhut Services, Inc. to provide security at the Metrorail station, no guards were assigned to patrol the bus stop area. Id. Mr. Miller sued claiming that the county breached its duty of care by failing to provide security guards or police officers near the bus stop to prevent the attack. Id.
“Generally speaking, the State and its subdivisions, including municipalities and counties, are sovereignly immune from tort liability unless such immunity is expressly waived by Statute. (cites omitted). By certain Florida statute, governmental immunity is waived and a tort action is authorized “when the tort is caused by the negligent act or omission of governmental employees acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances in which a private person would be liable.” Id. “Florida courts, however, recognize two exceptions: 1) the discretionary function exception, and 2) the public duty doctrine exception.” Id.
The public duty doctrine exception is when a plaintiff suing a “governmental entity in tort must allege and prove that the defendant breached a common law or statutory tort duty owed to the plaintiff individually and not a tort duty owed to the public generally.” (cites omitted) Id. Mr. Miller claimed that the county owed him a duty to have officers or security guards there to enforce the law. Id. The court held that the “county however, had no such duty. Making arrests, investing criminal activity, and preventing the commission of crimes are duties that law enforcement (or a governmental entity) owes to the public as a whole, not to individuals.” Id.
Mr. Miller tried to argue that though the county may enjoy sovereign immunity with respect to the enforcement of law in general, that “once it opened and operated a facility, it owed its invitees a common law duty to operate the facility safely, just as a private individual is obligated under like circumstances.” Id. In a case the plaintiff cited, the plaintiff swimmer drowned when she was caught in a riptide off a public beach and swimming area operated by a city. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court held that “when a municipality operates a public beach as a swimming are the municipality has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to those foreseeable users of that swimming area. This holding is based on our longstanding and well-settled precedent addressing governmental entities that operate public swimming areas.” Id. In another case, the plaintiff was hurt on a dock of a county owned park and swimming facility. Id. And in another case the plaintiff cited, the plaintiff was hurt at a recreational facility located in a city owned park. Id.
In the Miller case at hand, Mr. Miller was allegedly attacked as he exited the Metrorail station and while on a public sidewalk. Id. He was not in a park or other recreational facility. Id. He was on a sidewalk waiting to get on a bus. Id. He was not “in” the Metrorail station or on a bus. Id. Thus, the court determined, that “no special circumstances were presented and the County did not owe Mr. Miller a special duty to protect his safety.” Id. There was no “special relationship” between Mr. Miller and the county. Id. “Under Florida law, where a citizen falls victim to a criminal offense that might have been prevented through reasonable law enforcement action, no common law duty of care is owed to that individual (and thus no tort liability) absent a special relationship to the victim.” (cites omitted). Id.
Further, as to the discretionary duty exception, the Court stated that “certain discretionary functions of government are inherent in the act of governing and are immune from suit.” (cite omitted) Id. “In the instant case, the County, based upon its limited resource, made a discretionary decision not to provide security or other law enforcement personnel to patrol the area where the bus stop was located.” Id. This was the county’s decision and a discretionary one. Accordingly the court found that the County was immune from tort liability under the discretionary function exception. Id.
If you have been involved in a premises liability personal injury case that you would like to find out the answers to, please call and speak to swimming pool personal injury attorney Andrew S. Alitowski or William Ryan Moore at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637). We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!Swimming Pool Injuries or Death in Florida: Premises Liability Personal Injuries and Miami-Dade County’s Duty to Protect
The swimming pool liability attorneys at Alitowski & Moore provide Florida negligence law updates daily. If you have been insured due to the fault of another in Miami-Dade, contact our attorneys for a free consultation.
Can a Miami-Dade County can be held liable for a citizen getting attacked while on a public street waiting to board a bus? In Miami-Dade County v. Miller, 19 So.3d. 1037 (3rd D.C.A.), Mr. Miller filed a law suit in state court alleging that he was injured as a result of an attack and that the county should have had police near the bus station to protect him. The state court denied the motion for summary judgment by the county. Id. Thus, the county appealed and the appellate court reversed holding that the county did not owe Mr. Miller a duty to protect him. Id.
Mr. Miller was attacked by an unknown person while waiting for a bus near the Dadeland South Metrorail Station. Id. The county had a contract with Wackenhut Services, Inc. to provide security at the Metrorail station, no guards were assigned to patrol the bus stop area. Id. Mr. Miller sued claiming that the county breached its duty of care by failing to provide security guards or police officers near the bus stop to prevent the attack. Id.
“Generally speaking, the State and its subdivisions, including municipalities and counties, are sovereignly immune from tort liability unless such immunity is expressly waived by Statute. (cites omitted). By certain Florida statute, governmental immunity is waived and a tort action is authorized “when the tort is caused by the negligent act or omission of governmental employees acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances in which a private person would be liable.” Id. “Florida courts, however, recognize two exceptions: 1) the discretionary function exception, and 2) the public duty doctrine exception.” Id.
The public duty doctrine exception is when a plaintiff suing a “governmental entity in tort must allege and prove that the defendant breached a common law or statutory tort duty owed to the plaintiff individually and not a tort duty owed to the public generally.” (cites omitted) Id. Mr. Miller claimed that the county owed him a duty to have officers or security guards there to enforce the law. Id. The court held that the “county however, had no such duty. Making arrests, investing criminal activity, and preventing the commission of crimes are duties that law enforcement (or a governmental entity) owes to the public as a whole, not to individuals.” Id.
Mr. Miller tried to argue that though the county may enjoy sovereign immunity with respect to the enforcement of law in general, that “once it opened and operated a facility, it owed its invitees a common law duty to operate the facility safely, just as a private individual is obligated under like circumstances.” Id. In a case the plaintiff cited, the plaintiff swimmer drowned when she was caught in a riptide off a public beach and swimming area operated by a city. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court held that “when a municipality operates a public beach as a swimming are the municipality has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to those foreseeable users of that swimming area. This holding is based on our longstanding and well-settled precedent addressing governmental entities that operate public swimming areas.” Id. In another case, the plaintiff was hurt on a dock of a county owned park and swimming facility. Id. And in another case the plaintiff cited, the plaintiff was hurt at a recreational facility located in a city owned park. Id.
In the Miller case at hand, Mr. Miller was allegedly attacked as he exited the Metrorail station and while on a public sidewalk. Id. He was not in a park or other recreational facility. Id. He was on a sidewalk waiting to get on a bus. Id. He was not “in” the Metrorail station or on a bus. Id. Thus, the court determined, that “no special circumstances were presented and the County did not owe Mr. Miller a special duty to protect his safety.” Id. There was no “special relationship” between Mr. Miller and the county. Id. “Under Florida law, where a citizen falls victim to a criminal offense that might have been prevented through reasonable law enforcement action, no common law duty of care is owed to that individual (and thus no tort liability) absent a special relationship to the victim.” (cites omitted). Id.
Further, as to the discretionary duty exception, the Court stated that “certain discretionary functions of government are inherent in the act of governing and are immune from suit.” (cite omitted) Id. “In the instant case, the County, based upon its limited resource, made a discretionary decision not to provide security or other law enforcement personnel to patrol the area where the bus stop was located.” Id. This was the county’s decision and a discretionary one. Accordingly the court found that the County was immune from tort liability under the discretionary function exception. Id.
If you have been involved in a premises liability personal injury case that you would like to find out the answers to, please call and speak to swimming pool personal injury attorney Andrew S. Alitowski or William Ryan Moore at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637). We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!
