Shell v. Strachan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shell v. Strachan

700 So. 2d 175, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11560, 1997 WL 633951

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3680

StatusPublished

This text of 700 So. 2d 175 (Shell v. Strachan) 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

Shell v. Strachan, 700 So. 2d 175, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11560, 1997 WL 633951 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, we find that his amended complaint stated a claim for battery on his son in compliance with the requirement that to overcome the immunity provided to a school [176]*176board employee by subsection 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), the employee must have acted “in a manner exhibiting a wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property.” As to all remaining causes of action raised in the complaint— negligence, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental distress— we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal of the claim for punitive damages, without prejudice for appellant to make the evidentiary showing required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, we find that his amended complaint stated a claim for battery on his son in compliance with the requirement that to overcome the immunity provided to a school [176]*176board employee by subsection 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), the employee must have acted “in a manner exhibiting a wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property.” As to all remaining causes of action raised in the complaint— negligence, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental distress— we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice. We affirm the dismissal of the claim for punitive damages, without prejudice for appellant to make the evidentiary showing required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes (1995).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 175, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11560, 1997 WL 633951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shell-v-strachan-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack