BERGMANN v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 1D13-3160.

144 So.3d 582 (2014)

Sandra BERGMANN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul R. Bergmann, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, a governmental agency and Willie B. Wynn, individually, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 30, 2014.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi , Attorney General, Cecilia Bradley , Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Rachel Nordby , Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, for Appellee Florida Department of Transportation.


PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a final order of dismissal in her negligence action for damages sustained in a collision on a roadway over which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has jurisdiction. The trial court ruled that the claim is precluded by FDOT's sovereign immunity.

In reviewing the propriety of an order granting a motion to dismiss, we must take all the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Weaver v. Leon County Classroom Teachers Ass'n, 680 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

In this case, appellant sought recovery alleging that FDOT created a known hazardous condition which led to the collision. The allegations of the complaint indicate that the condition involved a hidden danger and that FDOT was aware of the hazard but failed to correct it or warn of the danger.

As explained in Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 1982), these assertions encompass an operational-level function to which sovereign immunity does not apply. See also, e.g., City of St. Petersburg v. Collom, 419 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1982); Mann v. State Dep't of Transp., 946 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Polk County v. Sofka, 803 So.2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review denied 821 So.2d 300 (Fla.2002).

Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice and remand for further proceedings.

WOLF, VAN NORTWICK and RAY, JJ., concur.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases