Rose v. City of Fort Lauderdale

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rose v. City of Fort Lauderdale

163 So. 2d 889, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4238

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1964

DocketNo. 4413

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 So. 2d 889 (Rose v. City of Fort Lauderdale) 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

Rose v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 163 So. 2d 889, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

ANDREWS, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the City of Fort Lauder-dale and four of its police officers seeking compensatory damages for intentional torts alleged to have been committed upon him by the policemen in the course of their employment. A summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant City, and the plaintiff appealed.

The doctrine that a municipality should not be held liable for the intentional torts of its agents, employees or officers has been followed in the decision in the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Middleton v. City of Fort Walton Beach, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 431. The principles stated in this case are followed in Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, Fla. App.1961, 130 So.2d 105, certiorari denied by the Florida Supreme Court, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 530. This court has followed this doctrine in the cases of Sheneman v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1963,. 156 So.2d 415 and Ross v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 770, opinion filed April 8, 1964. We, therefore feel that the judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., concurs. BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge,, dissents with opinion.

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

ANDREWS, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the City of Fort Lauder-dale and four of its police officers seeking compensatory damages for intentional torts alleged to have been committed upon him by the policemen in the course of their employment. A summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant City, and the plaintiff appealed.

The doctrine that a municipality should not be held liable for the intentional torts of its agents, employees or officers has been followed in the decision in the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Middleton v. City of Fort Walton Beach, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 431. The principles stated in this case are followed in Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, Fla. App.1961, 130 So.2d 105, certiorari denied by the Florida Supreme Court, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 530. This court has followed this doctrine in the cases of Sheneman v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1963,. 156 So.2d 415 and Ross v. Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 770, opinion filed April 8, 1964. We, therefore feel that the judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., concurs. BARNS, PAUL D., Associate Judge,, dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 2d 889, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-city-of-fort-lauderdale-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack