 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Floyd v. Department of Children and Families9/18/2003
Appellant, as personal representative of the estate of Ciara Floyd, seeks review of a summary final judgment entered against it, and in favor of appellee, in a wrongful death action. Because our review of the record satisfies us that genuine issues exist as to material facts, and that appellee has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, we reverse.
Three-year-old Ciara was murdered by her mother's boyfriend while in the custody of her mother, with whom the boyfriend resided. The complaint alleged that, in the six months preceding her death, two reports had been made to appellee that Ciara appeared to have bruises and other indications of abuse; that the individual assigned by appellee to investigate the matter was told that the boyfriend had a history of abuse; that, after investigating the matter, the investigator returned Ciara to her mother, knowing that the boyfriend was still living there; and that, within weeks, Ciara was murdered by the boyfriend, who ultimately pled guilty to the crime. According to the complaint, appellee was negligent when it returned Ciara to her mother's household, knowing of the boyfriend's past history of abuse, and that negligence was the proximate cause of Ciara's death. Appellee denied the material allegations of the complaint, and raised several affirmative defenses. Following discovery, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted by an order which provides no insight into the thought process by which it arrived at its decision. This appeal follows.
Our standard of review is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Our task is to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the trial court has correctly applied the law to the facts, after having drawn every possible inference in favor of appellant (as the party against whom the summary judgment was rendered). E.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985); Thompson v. Gallo, 680 So. 2d 441, 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). "A summary judgment is appropriate only when `the facts are so crystalized that nothing remains but questions of law' and there is not the `slightest doubt' as to any issue of material fact." Aloff v. Neff-Harmon, Inc., 463 So. 2d 291, 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). " f the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the . . . summary judgment must be [reversed]." Jones v. Directors Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Moreover, " ummary judgments should be cautiously granted in negligence . . . suits." Moore, 475 So. 2d at 668.
Our review of the record satisfies us that genuine issues exist as to facts material to the question of whether appellee was negligent. Appellee argues that the summary judgment should, nevertheless, be affirmed because the facts demonstrate that it is immune from suit pursuant to either section 768.28 or section 415.511, Florida Statutes (1995). We disagree.
In Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Yamuni, 529 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1988), a case involving substantively indistinguishable facts from this one, the court held that the Department's investigator's actions were operational-level, rather than planning-level, activities and that, therefore, the Department was not entitled to immunity pursuant to section 768.28. Applying the case-by-case analysis mandated by Yamuni, we conclude that Yamuni controls here, and requires the further conclusion that appellee is not entitled to section 768.28 immunity.
Appellee also claims that summary judgment was appropriate because it
Page 1 2 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|