METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES SMITH ET UX., 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 court held that sovereign immunity and notice provisions were inapplicable, summary judgment on liability was proper, and the damages awarded were supported by evidence.
[1] Sovereign immunity is inapplicable when the facts of a case do not support its application.
[2] Failure to raise an issue in the trial court precludes its consideration on appeal.
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 intelligenceAppellees sued appellants for injuries sustained by appellee Charles Smith in a collision with a bus operated by appellant MTA. The trial court entere…
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 Imputed Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, bring this appeal from a final judgment, dated November 18, 1976, entered by the trial court pursuant to a non-jury trial, awarding money damages to appellees, plaintiffs below, as a result of injuries sustained by appellee Charles Smith in a collision with a bus being operated by appellant Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority [hereinafter referred to as MTA]. We affirm.
The points on appeal may be summarized as follows: (1) whether the judgment should be reversed on the basis of sovereign immunity and the notice provisions of Section 2.2, Code of Metropolitan Dade County; (2) whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on the question of liability and limiting the trial to the issue of damages; and (3) whether the amount of the damages awarded was excessive and unsupported by the evidence.
In regard to appellants’ first point on appeal, we feel that, under the facts of this case, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is inapplicable. Butts v. County of Dade, 178 So. 2d 592 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). Further, appellants’ contentions in regard to the lack of notice pursuant to Section 2.2,. Code of Metropolitan Dade County, are without merit.
In our opinion, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the question of liability in favor of appel-lees and limiting the trial below to the question of damages. The record reflects sufficient evidence to sustain the summary judgment. We note that the evidence shows as a matter of law some degree of negligence on the part of MTA. We further note that the question of the imputed liability of appellee Charles Smith was not raised in the trial court; therefore, it cannot be raised for the first time by this appeal.
In regard to appellants’ third point on appeal, it is our opinion that the amount of the damages awarded is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record; therefore, we cannot substitute our opinion for that of the trier of facts. Accordingly, this point is also without merit.
Affirmed.