South Florida Water Management District v. Taylor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

South Florida Water Management District v. Taylor

676 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5494, 1996 WL 279738

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1996

DocketNo. 95-547

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 So. 2d 11 (South Florida Water Management District v. Taylor) 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

South Florida Water Management District v. Taylor, 676 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5494, 1996 WL 279738 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellee recovered a jury verdict and judgment against the South Florida Water Management District for injuries incurred when, while a passenger in a boat traveling on a district canal, he was struck on the head by a low hanging footbridge. We reverse with directions to enter judgment for the appellant both because the District is protected by sovereign immunity from the liability asserted, Department of Transp. v. Konney, 587 So.2d 1292 (Fla.1991); Barrera v. State Dep’t of Transp., 470 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla.1985), and because, even treating the defendant as a private entity, there was no breach of duty to the plaintiff with respect to the condition in question. See Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309, 1311 (Fla.1986). These conclusions make it unnecessary to consider either the other arguments made by the District in support of its claim to a judgment in its favor or the points advanced for granting it a new trial.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellee recovered a jury verdict and judgment against the South Florida Water Management District for injuries incurred when, while a passenger in a boat traveling on a district canal, he was struck on the head by a low hanging footbridge. We reverse with directions to enter judgment for the appellant both because the District is protected by sovereign immunity from the liability asserted, Department of Transp. v. Konney, 587 So.2d 1292 (Fla.1991); Barrera v. State Dep’t of Transp., 470 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla.1985), and because, even treating the defendant as a private entity, there was no breach of duty to the plaintiff with respect to the condition in question. See Ashcroft v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 492 So.2d 1309, 1311 (Fla.1986). These conclusions make it unnecessary to consider either the other arguments made by the District in support of its claim to a judgment in its favor or the points advanced for granting it a new trial.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 So. 2d 11, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5494, 1996 WL 279738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-florida-water-management-district-v-taylor-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack