Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County

523 So. 2d 642, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 614, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1988 WL 18585

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1988

DocketNo. 87-355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 642 (Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 523 So. 2d 642, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 614, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1988 WL 18585 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly granted Dade County’s motion to dismiss Caribbean Ship Chandler’s amended complaint alleging that Dade County was negligent in failing to provide Caribbean with adequate security protection from criminal acts of third parties. Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint, both the permit application and sections 2-56.1 to 2-56.10, Code of Metropolitan Dade County (1959), provide that off-duty officers remain employees of Dade County acting within the course and scope of their ordinary employment. Because the county could not be liable for an on-duty officer’s failure to prevent the commission of a crime by a third party, it necessarily follows that the county could not be liable for an off-duty officer’s failure to prevent the commission of a crime. Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla.1985); Reddish v. Smith, 468 So.2d 929 (Fla.1985); Wong v. City of Miami, 237 So.2d 132 (Fla.1970).

The order and judgment of dismissal is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly granted Dade County’s motion to dismiss Caribbean Ship Chandler’s amended complaint alleging that Dade County was negligent in failing to provide Caribbean with adequate security protection from criminal acts of third parties. Notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint, both the permit application and sections 2-56.1 to 2-56.10, Code of Metropolitan Dade County (1959), provide that off-duty officers remain employees of Dade County acting within the course and scope of their ordinary employment. Because the county could not be liable for an on-duty officer’s failure to prevent the commission of a crime by a third party, it necessarily follows that the county could not be liable for an off-duty officer’s failure to prevent the commission of a crime. Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla.1985); Reddish v. Smith, 468 So.2d 929 (Fla.1985); Wong v. City of Miami, 237 So.2d 132 (Fla.1970).

The order and judgment of dismissal is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 642, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 614, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 922, 1988 WL 18585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caribbean-ship-chandler-inc-v-metropolitan-dade-county-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack