Mann v. State Department of Transportation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mann v. State Department of Transportation

946 So. 2d 1246, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 815, 2007 WL 173856

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 25, 2007

DocketNo. 1D06-1195

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 946 So. 2d 1246 (Mann v. State Department of Transportation) 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

Mann v. State Department of Transportation, 946 So. 2d 1246, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 815, 2007 WL 173856 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The appellants challenge a summary judgment entered in their negligence action for damages sustained in a vehicular collision, with the trial court ruling that the claim is precluded by the appellee’s sovereign immunity. The appellants sought recovery on the theory that the appellee created a hazardous condition which led to the collision. The appellants further indicated that this involved a hidden danger with an illusion of safety, and that the appellee was aware of the hazard [1247]*1247but failed to correct it or to warn of the danger. As explained in Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982), these assertions encompass an operational-level function to which sovereign immunity does not apply. See also, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982); Polk County v. Sofka, 803 So.2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), revietu denied 821 So.2d 300 (Fla.2002). The appellants submitted depositions and affidavits with factual recitations supporting these assertions, and the appellee’s submission of countering affidavits raised a factual dispute which may not be resolved by summary judgment. See, e.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Falco v. Copeland, 919 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

The appealed order is reversed, and the case is remanded.

WOLF, J., and ERVIN, III, RICHARD W., Senior Judge, concur.

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

ALLEN, J.

The appellants challenge a summary judgment entered in their negligence action for damages sustained in a vehicular collision, with the trial court ruling that the claim is precluded by the appellee’s sovereign immunity. The appellants sought recovery on the theory that the appellee created a hazardous condition which led to the collision. The appellants further indicated that this involved a hidden danger with an illusion of safety, and that the appellee was aware of the hazard [1247]*1247but failed to correct it or to warn of the danger. As explained in Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla.1982), these assertions encompass an operational-level function to which sovereign immunity does not apply. See also, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982); Polk County v. Sofka, 803 So.2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), revietu denied 821 So.2d 300 (Fla.2002). The appellants submitted depositions and affidavits with factual recitations supporting these assertions, and the appellee’s submission of countering affidavits raised a factual dispute which may not be resolved by summary judgment. See, e.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); Falco v. Copeland, 919 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

The appealed order is reversed, and the case is remanded.

WOLF, J., and ERVIN, III, RICHARD W., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 So. 2d 1246, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 815, 2007 WL 173856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-state-department-of-transportation-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack