WILLIAM M. NEILSON, A MINOR, KIM L. NEILSON, A MINOR, ROBERT F. NEILSON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH THEIR FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM E. NEILSON, AND WILLIAM E. NEILSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND PATRICIA P. NEILSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; HARVEY DANIEL GLISSON; BELCHER OIL COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION; HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Neilsons appealed the dismissal of their personal injury lawsuit against governmental defendants arising from a vehicular collision at a defectively designed intersection. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the negligent design and construction of the intersection constituted operational-level decision-making not protected by governmental immunity under the planning/operational distinction established in Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Indian River County.
The court held that negligent design and construction of an intersection constitutes operational-level decision-making for which governmental entities are not immune from tort liability. Once a government decides to construct a road, it must act responsibly and reasonably in the actual design and construction, even though the initial planning decision to build the road remains discretionary and immune.
[1] Governmental entities are not immune from tort liability for negligence occurring at the operational level of decision-making, even if the initial decision to act was a p…
[2] Negligence in the design and construction of a roadway, including failure to conform with traffic control ordinances, falls under the operational level of decision-making…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“once a government decides to act, whether out of obligation or free choice, it must act responsibly and reasonably under the existing circumstances, and in accordance with acceptable standards of care and common sense”
Establishes the standard for operational-level governmental decision-making subject to negligence liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Neilsons were injured in a vehicular collision at an intersection in Tampa. They alleged the intersection was defectively designed, lacked adequat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Governmental Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The Neilsons appeal from the dismissal of their personal injury complaint against the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Department of Transportation. Appellants allege that the lower court erred in finding the governmental defendants immune from suit in light of the supreme court’s opinion in Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). We agree that defendants are not immune and we reverse.
Appellants’ complaint alleged injuries resulting from a vehicular collision. Those counts directed against the governmental defendants alleged that the intersection where the collision occurred was defectively designed, not adequately controlled with traffic control signs, and hazardous to approaching motorists. Appellants alleged that the three governmental entities designed, maintained and constructed the intersection and failed to conform with the State Uniform Traffic Control Ordinances and Regulations.
After dismissal of the complaints, this court remanded for reconsideration in light of the subsequent case of Commercial Carrier, supra. Neilson v. Department of Transportation, 376 So. 2d 296 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The circuit court again dismissed the complaints.
The Florida Supreme Court in Commercial Carrier adopted a test distinguishing between “planning” and “operational” levels of decision making by governmental agencies. Planning decisions remain immune from tort liability because “certain functions of coordinate branches of government may not be subjected to scrutiny by judge or jury as to the wisdom of their performance.”
We hold that the negligence alleged below falls under the operational level of decision making. As this court noted in Collum v. City of St. Petersburg, 400 So. 2d 507, at 508-(Fla.2d DCA 1981), “once a government decides to act, whether out of obligation or free choice, it must act responsibly and reasonably under the existing circumstances, and in accordance with acceptable standards of care and common sense.” Below, once the planning decision was made to intersect the roads, the governmental entities could not negligently design or construct the facility with impunity. Appel-lees’ conceded discretion in planning to build a road does not extend to the actual drawing of the plans and specifications. To hold otherwise would produce a result so that even though the finished project might be inherently dangerous . .. (appellees) could not be liable, because . . . (they) “planned” the system that way. The fact of the matter is that a blueprint is not a plan in the sense of the “planning” that is discretionary, and once the “planning” has been done, the plans that are then prepared can indeed give rise to liability. Collum, supra, at 509.
The orders of dismissal are REVERSED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and DAN-AHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Neilson, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1982)…OVERTON, Justice. These are three petitions to review one decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported as Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The case involves an interpretation of “operational-level” as distinguished from “judgmental planning-level” functions of government as discussed in Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). Spe…1 / 2
-
Orla Ralph v. City OF Daytona Beach, 471 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)…strict court’s opinion alleging in this Court that the opinion expressly and directly conflicted with Savignac v. Department of Transportation, 406 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), petition denied, 413 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982); Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), quashed, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1982); and Collom v. City of St. Petersburg, 400 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), approved, 419 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article Y, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution…
-
Ingham v. State, 419 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1982)…-level” governmental function as set out in Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979), and Department of Transportation v. Neilson, 419 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1982). There is direct conflict with Neilson v. City of Tampa, 400 So. 2d 799 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. We approve the district court’s decision. We hold that the alleged defects in the construction of the road, the median, and the intersection, if in fact they are defects, are def…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty., 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979)
- Collom v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 400 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Neilson v. Dep't OF Transp., 376 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)