City of Jacksonville v. FLA. FIRST NAT. BK., ETC.
339 So.2d 632 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may be held liable for the negligence of its employees when they undertake a special duty to a particular individual, creating a relationship distinct from the general duty owed to the public. Such a special duty can arise from direct contact with the victim and the failure to follow specific statutory procedures designed to protect a particular class of individuals.
Facts:
- Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville served as the legal guardian for Ernest John Dobbert, III and Honore Elizabeth Dobbert.
- On multiple occasions, the Jacksonville police department received reports that the children's father, Ernest Dobbert, was abusing and neglecting them.
- Police officers responded to these reports and had direct, personal contact with the children, conducting superficial examinations.
- The children's mother, while incarcerated in a Jacksonville jail, informed city officials of her concerns that her children were being abused.
- Jacksonville police officers allegedly failed to properly investigate the abuse allegations and did not check the father's available criminal record, which would have revealed a history of child abuse.
- The officers also failed to file required investigative reports with the juvenile court and state agencies, as mandated by Florida statute.
- As a result of these alleged failures, the children continued to suffer severe abuse at the hands of their father.
Procedural Posture:
- Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville sued the City of Jacksonville in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- The City of Jacksonville filed a motion to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the City's motion and dismissed the lawsuit.
- The Bank, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the Bank's complaints stated a valid cause of action against the City of Jacksonville (appellee).
- The City of Jacksonville, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Florida to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipality owe a special duty of care, creating a basis for tort liability, when its police officers respond to multiple reports of child abuse, have direct contact with the children, and fail to follow statutory procedures for reporting and investigating that abuse?
Opinions:
Concurring - England, J.
This Court does not reach the merits of the issue because it lacks jurisdiction. The District Court of Appeal's affirmative answer stands because there is no direct conflict with prior case law that would trigger this Court's review. The facts of this case are substantially different from prior municipal liability cases such as Wong, Modlin, and Evett. Those cases did not involve: (1) the police's failure to follow a specific statute designed to protect a class of individuals (child abuse reporting laws); (2) direct and personal contact between police and the specific individuals who were later injured; (3) specific warnings to city officials from a credible source (the mother); and (4) the failure to follow internal reporting procedures. Because the controlling facts are not 'substantially the same' as in prior cases, there is no jurisdictional conflict, and the writ of certiorari must be discharged.
Dissenting - Boyd, J.
No, a municipality does not owe a special duty under these circumstances, and the decision of the District Court of Appeal should be reversed. The duty of police protection is one owed to the public generally, not a special duty to a particular individual, even when police have been dispatched to a scene. This case is controlled by precedents like Wong v. City of Miami, which established that governments must be free to exercise discretion in deploying police resources without fear of negligence suits. Holding the city liable for the discretionary judgments of its police officers would open the floodgates to litigation, potentially bankrupting local governments and causing more harm than good. The police duty here was a general public duty, and no special duty was created.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the 'special duty' exception to the public duty doctrine, which generally shields municipalities from liability for failing to provide police protection. By allowing the lower court's decision to stand, the Florida Supreme Court effectively endorsed the principle that a special, actionable duty is created when police have direct contact with a known, potential victim and fail to follow specific statutory mandates designed for that victim's protection. The decision distinguishes between a general failure to protect the public and a specific failure to protect an identified individual after undertaking a duty to them. This creates a pathway for liability in cases of police negligence that go beyond mere discretionary errors in resource allocation.
