WAADEW AYSISAYH, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARDO INFANTE, ET AL., 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.
A prisoner sued the State of Florida and correctional officials for damages related to his treatment while imprisoned. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint for failure to comply with tort notice requirements, and this appeal addresses whether the dismissal was proper as to both the state and individual defendants.
The dismissal as to the State of Florida was affirmed because the plaintiff failed to satisfy the notice requirements of Section 768.28(6). However, the dismissal as to the individual defendants was reversed because the complaint was marginally sufficient to allege that such defendants acted in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, which would overcome governmental immunity under Section 768.28(9)(a).
[1] A plaintiff must satisfy the notice requirements of Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes, to maintain a tort action against the State of Florida.
[2] An officer, employee, or agent of the state may be held personally liable in tort for an injury or damage suffered as a result of an act within the scope of employment on…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the complaint was not dismissible as to the individual defendants inasmuch as the complaint was marginally sufficient to allege that such defendants acted "in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property."”
Establishes that individual state employees retain personal liability under tort law when their conduct meets the statutory threshold of wanton and willful disregard, distinguishing them from the state itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a prisoner in the state corrections system, filed a civil tort complaint against the State of Florida and certain agents and employees of t…
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.
NIMMONS, Judge.
Appellant, a prisoner in the state corrections system, appeals from an order dismissing his civil complaint in which he sought damages in tort against the State of Florida and certain agents and employees of the state for various alleged acts in connection with his treatment while imprisoned in the corrections system.
Pursuant to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the complaint for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the requirements of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
We affirm the dismissal order as to the defendant, State of Florida, for failure of the plaintiff to satisfy the notice requirements of Section 768.28(6). Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Indian River County, 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.1979). However, the complaint was not dismissible as to the individual defendants inasmuch as the complaint was marginally sufficient to allege that such defendants acted “in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” 1
Accordingly, the order is affirmed with respect to its dismissal of the complaint as to the defendant, State of Florida, but reversed insofar as the dismissal to the individual defendants.
SMITH, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. . Section 768.28(9)(a) provides in pertinent part:
(9)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cnty., 371 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1979)