JOHN E. MINARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND S. D. NATALE, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
John Minard sued State Trooper S.D. Natale for failing to stop a hit-and-run vehicle, claiming Natale's failure to pursue the driver caused Minard's injuries. The court affirmed summary judgment for Natale, holding that an off-duty trooper has no duty to stop or arrest a vehicle operator and may prioritize rendering aid to injured persons.
An off-duty trooper has no duty to arrest or stop a vehicle driver, particularly when not intentionally pursuing the vehicle and when departmental policy restricts off-duty arrests to felonies. The trooper's responsibility was to render aid to the injured person, which Natale fulfilled, and summary judgment for the trooper was proper.
[1] An off-duty law enforcement officer generally has no duty to arrest a driver for a misdemeanor offense.
[2] A law enforcement officer's duty to render aid to an injured person supersedes any duty to pursue a fleeing vehicle, especially when off-duty and not intentionally pursui…
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“Natale had no duty to arrest the driver of the car.”
Establishes the core holding that an off-duty trooper has no affirmative duty to stop or arrest a vehicle operator.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOff-duty State Trooper Natale, driving in civilian clothing in his personal vehicle at night, noticed a car with non-functioning taillights traveling …
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 Damages For Injuries cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The appellant takes these consolidated appeals from a summary judgment and order of dismissal which terminated his suit for damages for injuries sustained in a hit-and-run accident.
Minard filed suit against S. D. Natale, a State Trooper, alleging that Natale was liable for injuries which Minard suffered in a hit-and-run accident because Natale failed to stop the driver of the hit-and-run vehicle.
At night, Natale, an off-duty Highway Patrolman, in civilian clothing, in his personal car, noticed a car whose taillights were not functioning. Without intentionally doing so, Natale was going in the same direction as the car. The driver of the car never did anything that would have caused him to stop the car had he been on duty. Further, there was evidence that off-duty troopers are instructed by their department not to arrest except for felony offenses.
Natale never saw the car strike Minard; he only saw a flash of white above the car which he realized were notebook papers. Associating the paper with a child, Natale stopped and walked up and down the shoulder until he found the injured Minard. Although Natale searched for the hit-and-run vehicle, it was never located. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Natale. The complaint was then dismissed as to the two departments of the state, on the ground that these agencies would be liable only if Natale were liable. Minard takes consolidated appeals from the summary judgment and the order of dismissal.
Natale had no duty to arrest the driver of the car. Section 790.052 and cases cited by the appellant are inapplicable because they are all founded upon a prior determination that a duty existed. Natale was off-duty, he had been ordered not to make misdemeanor arrests, and he was not intentionally pursuing the vehicle. He was under no duty to stop the car; further, Section 790.-052 does not impose a duty upon off-duty officers but instead gives the officer the option. Nor was Natale obligated to follow the car; in fact, his responsibility was to render aid to the injured Minard, which he did.
The summary judgment orders under review are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…e is admissible if relevant to a fact in issue, even though it also points to the commission of a separate crime. Such evidence is inadmissible, however, if its sole relevancy is to establish bad character on the part of the accused. Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 288 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1127, 103 S.Ct. 763, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 (1983). A mere general similarity will not render the similar facts legally relevant to show identity. There must be identifiable points of similarity which pervade the compared…
-
DOE v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004)…, in that it required a showing of only (1) sexual penetration and (2) a lack of consent. Furthermore, under Florida law, sexual battery is a general intent crime and does not require that a defendant act with specific intent. See Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 288, 239 (Fla.1982) (“State of mind is not a material fact in a sexual battery charge, nor is intent an issue.”); Killian v. State, 730 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1999); Jackson v. State, 640 So. 2d 1173, 1174 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994); see also…