04-0790 SCHMID V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Third District Court of Appeal » 2005 » 04-0790 SCHMID V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d04-0790

Case Date: 05/11/2005

Plaintiff: 04-0790 SCHMID

Defendant: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM A.D., 2005 SHIRLEY SCHMID, Appellant, vs. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee. ** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D04-790 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-9682

Opinion filed May 11, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Hicks & Kneale and Dinah Stein, for appellant. Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney and Sheri Alden Sack, First Assistant City Attorney, for appellee. Before SHEPHERD and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. While she was walking on Lincoln Road Mall in Miami Beach, Ms. Schmid's shoe became caught in a "decorative groove" around a tree planted in the concrete walkway. She fell and was

injured. below for

In this appeal, we reverse a summary judgment entered the fact city because its of the existence for of issues of the See

material condition,

concerning

liability and

maintaining causation.

comparative

negligence,

legal

Ferla v. Metro. Dade County, 374 So. 2d 64, 66-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1980); Kopf v. City of Miami Beach, 653 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 662 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1995); Capo v. State Dep't of Transp., 642 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 651 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995); Camillo v. State Dep't of Transp., 546 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), review denied, 547 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1989); Armas v. Metro. Dade County, 429 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brien v. Fla. Dep't of Transp., 538 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State Dep't of Transp. v. Kennedy, 429 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Specifically, we reject the defendant's primary argument for affirmance the that it is protected by sovereign in the immunity walking

because

allegedly

dangerous

indentation

surface which caused the accident was an aesthetic feature of the original design of the surface,1 rather than the result of a hole or crack in the sidewalk which had not been properly

repaired.
1

The law is to the contrary.

In Ferla, which was

The fact that other similar areas on the mall did not contain that "defect" is itself evidence of the availability and feasibility of a safer alternative. See Holley v. Mt. Zion Terrace Apartments, Inc., 382 So. 2d 98, 100-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

2

decided County,

soon 371

after So. 2d

Commercial 1010

Carrier 1979),

Corp.

v.

Indian the

River basic

(Fla.

introduced still

"operational-planning"

dichotomy

which

essentially

prevails today, we considered various claims of county liability arising from an automobile accident on a county maintained

causeway.

In addressing just this contention, we said

We think that the claim that the median strip was negligently designed and constructed so as to cause a car which accidently came into contact with it to become airborne rather clearly falls within that class of governmental decision-making which the supreme court characterized as "operational" and thus actionable. The determination of the precise configuration of the median strip, which the county had already determined was to be installed in some form conceptually does not differ from the activity involved in properly maintaining already installed traffic control devices--which the court specifically held to be non-immune from tort liability in Commercial Carrier-Cheney. See also Welsh v. Metropolitan Dade County, 366 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Several decisions interpreting the Federal Tort Claims Act's "discretionary function" exception, which the supreme court found helpful and analogous in Commercial Carrier, support this view. For example, in Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. United States, 473 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1973), the fifth circuit dealt with a claim that the government had negligently designed and constructed a drainage ditch at an army base. The court stated at 473 F.2d 716: "The government next contends that even if the District Court's fact findings are not clearly erroneous, the District Court had no jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because government decisions concerning designs, plans, and specifications are within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act."

3

*

*

*

*

*

*

"We think the District Court was neither clearly erroneous regarding the facts, nor in error in applying the law. The discretionary function envisioned by 28 U.S.C.

Download 3d04-0790.pdf