Case Name: Lucious BROWN and Henrietta Brown, Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and Golden Glades Management Corp., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-12-05
Citations: 837 So. 2d 414
Docket Number: No. 3D00-3540
Parties: Lucious BROWN and Henrietta Brown, Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and Golden Glades Management Corp., Appellees.
Judges: Before LEVY, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 837
Pages: 414–423

Head Matter:
Lucious BROWN and Henrietta Brown, Appellants, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY and Golden Glades Management Corp., Appellees.
No. 3D00-3540.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 5, 2001.
Order Denying Rehearing En Banc Jan. 28, 2003.
Dissenting Opinion on Denial of Rehearing En Banc Jan. 28, 2003.
Barbara Green, Coral Gables; Alan B. Saslaw, Aventura; Clark, Robb, Mason & Coulombe and James K. Clark, Miami, for appellants.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Miami-Dade County Attorney and Stephen A. Stieglitz, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Before LEVY, GREEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
GREEN, J.
Appellants, Lucious and Henrietta Brown, plaintiffs below, appeal the dismissal of their claims against Miami-Dade County ("the County" or "Miami-Dade") for assault and negligence. They assert, and we agree, that their claims were not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as found by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On a review of a motion to dismiss, we must accept the well-plead allegations of the complaint as true. See Cutler v. Bd. of Regents, 459 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In their second amended complaint, the Browns sought damages against the County for assault and negligence. The allegations as to assault in Count I were, in relevant part, as follows:
10. On or about June 12, 1997, Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, was a paying guest of the Howard Johnson Motel located at or near 16500 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "THE PREMISES").
11. On or about this date, Defendant, MIAMI-DADE, by and through its Police Department employees, servants, and/or agents, conducted a police operation related to prostitution on THE PREMISES.
12. While the police operation was ongoing, Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, was walking on an inside hallway of THE PREMISES going to and from the Motel Lobby to his room when he came upon a ninety degree bend in the hallway requiring him to turn right in order to proceed towards his room. Just as Plaintiff made his right turn around the corner of the hallway, a police officer spun left towards the Plaintiff, pointed a gun directly at Plaintiff without cause or justification, and yelled freeze; thereby placing Plaintiff in fear of imminent peril.
13. That Defendant, MIAMI DADE's, aforementioned actions created a known dangerous condition on THE PREMISES which was not readily apparent to the Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN.
14. That the Defendant, MIAMI-DADE, had knowledge of the presence of persons in THE PREMISES who were likely to be injured by the aforementioned dangerous condition, including the Plaintiff and other paying guests of the Howard Johnson Motel who would be walking in the hallways of THE PREMISES to and from their motel room.
15. That the Defendant, MIAMI-DADE, failed to take steps to warn and/or protect the Plaintiff from the foregoing dangerous condition.
16. As a result, Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future.
In Count II of their second amended complaint, the Browns alleged negligence against Miami-Dade by reasserting the allegations contained in Count I and by adding, in relevant part, the following:

20. On or about June 12, 1997, Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, was lawfully upon THE PREMISES.
22. On or about June 12, 1997, Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, was walking on an inside hallway of THE PREMISES going from the Motel Lobby to his room when he came upon a ninety degree bend in the hallway requiring him to turn right in order to proceed towards his room. Just as Plaintiff made his right turn around the corner of the hallway, a police officer spun left towards the Plaintiff; pointed a gun directly at Plaintiff without cause or justification; and yelled freeze which resulted in Plaintiff losing his footing and falling to the ground.
23. The Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN, was an innocent bystander and had no association with the police operation other than his walking in the hallway at or about the location of the police operation.
24. Defendant, MIAMI-DADE was negligent, such negligence includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. Failing to establish a safe perimeter around the ongoing police operation;
b. Failing to stop Plaintiff from walking into a dangerous situation by allowing him to walk down a hallway where an ongoing police operation was taking place;
c. Failing to use reasonable care in performing the police operation;
d. Creating a dangerous condition on THE PREMISES;
e. Failing to supervise and inspect, or insufficiently supervising and inspecting the police operation;
f. Failing to warn of prostitution related activity occurring on THE PREMISES;
g. Failing to warn of a criminal element present on THE PREMISES associated with prostitution related activity.
h. Failing to properly warn, or sufficiently warning [sic] the Plaintiff and the public of the dangerous police operation; and,
i. Failing to follow safety precautions in order to prevent harm to Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
25.That Defendant, MIAMI-DADE's aforementioned actions created a known dangerous condition on THE PREMISES which was not readily apparent to the Plaintiff, LUCIOUS BROWN.
The County moved to dismiss these claims on the grounds that its police officers were in the process of carrying out their discretionary power to enforce compliance with the law and, as such, their actions toward Mr. Brown could not give rise to tort liability. Alternatively, the County argued that even if the alleged police activity was not immune, the County owed no duty to the plaintiff greater than its duty to the public in general since the plaintiff was not in police custody. The trial court granted the County's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs claims and this appeal followed.
We begin our analysis with the question of whether the County owed an actionable duty to the appellants based upon the allegations contained in their complaint. That is because the issue of sovereign immunity does not arise unless a common law or statutory duty of care existed which would have been applicable to an individual under like circumstances. See Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So.2d 732, 734 (Fla.1989) (stating that: "while a duty certainly must exist for there to be liability, the question of governmental immunity does not itself depend upon this determination. That is, a court must find no liability as a matter of law if either (a) no duty of care existed, or (b) the doctrine of governmental immunity bars the claim."). We find that the County did owe a duty of care to Lucious Brown where the alleged conduct of the police created a foreseeable zone of risk to him as an innocent bystander. The Supreme Court in Kaisner has recognized that:
[w]here a defendant's conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.
543 So.2d at 735.
As the risk grows, so too does the duty, because the risk to be perceived defines the duty of care to be undertaken. See City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (Fla.1992).
The appellants correctly point out that Florida courts have found that police officers do owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect innocent bystanders such as appellant, Lucious Brown, where their law enforcement activities create a foreseeable zone of risk. See e.g., City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222 (Fla.1992) (finding that police owed duty to innocent motorists killed wdiile police were pursuing traffic violator in a high-speed chase); City of Miami v. Hong-De La Cruz, 784 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (city owed duty of care to pedestrian injured as police pursued a felon on foot during crowded festival); Sams v. Oelrich, 717 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (deputy owed duty to innocent persons in hospital emergency room to reasonably control the acts of escapee taken to hospital by the police); Creamer v. Sampson, 700 So.2d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (duty owed to innocent plaintiff motorist by police during high-speed pursuit of traffic offender).
Contrary to the argument advanced by the County, a police officer's duty to exercise reasonable care is not limited to "hot pursuit" situations or cases involving a custodial relationship between the police officer and the injured party. For example, in Henderson v. Bowden, 737 So.2d 532 (Fla.1999), a sheriffs deputy arrested a drunk driver and thereafter directed the driver's equally intoxicated passenger who was not in custody, to drive the vehicle to a nearby Circle K store to call his parents for a ride home. While operating the vehicle, this intoxicated driver had a collision with some trees, causing the deaths of two other passengers in the car. Like the County in this case, the Sheriff in Henderson argued that it owed no duty to the decedents because the operator of the car was not in its custody at the time of the collision. The court squarely rejected this argument and concluded that the Sheriffs deputies had placed the passengers of the car in danger by directing an intoxicated person to drive, and that this direction, more likely than not, created a foreseeable zone of risk giving rise to a legal duty. See 737 So.2d at 536. The Court further stated that:
. our holding today is not based on the fact that the passengers may or may not have been in the deputies' custody. Rather, our decision is based on the fact that the deputies' actions placed the passengers in danger.
Id.
Based upon the allegations contained in the second amended complaint, we agree with the appellants that the County police created a foreseeable zone of risk to innocent bystanders such as Mr. Brown, while they were implementing the sting operation at the hotel. As a result, they owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid harm to such bystanders. Having determined that an actionable duty existed, we must now determine whether the County's actions were nevertheless protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Our supreme court has repeatedly held that governmental liability may exist when the act of the government or its agent is non-discretionary, but operational in nature. See Kaisner, 543 So.2d at 736 citing Avallone v. Bd. of County Comm., 493 So.2d 1002, 1005 (Fla.1986); Commercial Carrier v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1979). As used in this context, the court explained that the term "discretionary" means that the governmental act in question involved an exercise of executive or legislative power such that, for the court to intervene by way of tort law, it inappropriately would entangle itself in fundamental questions of policy and planning. See Kaisner at 737. An "operational" function, however, is one not necessary to or inherent in policy or planning, but merely reflects a secondary decision as to how those policies or plans will be implemented. Id.
Thus, in this case, we must determine whether the allegations in the second amended complaint regarding the officer's actions are discretionary or operational in nature. We conclude that they are operational in nature, as the appellants are essentially claiming that their injuries were sustained by virtue of the manner in which the police implemented their sting operation. As such, the County is not immune from suit for its alleged failure to exercise reasonable care to safeguard innocent bystanders such as Lucious Brown while effectuating its police operations at the hotel. See Henderson v. Bowden, City of Pinellas Park v. Brown; City of Miami v. Hong-De La Cruz; Sams v. Oelrich, 717 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); State Dept. of Highway Safety v. Kropff, 491 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Weissberg v. City of Miami Beach, 383 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Our decision in Seguine v. City of Miami, 627 So.2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) does not dictate a different result as urged by the County. In Seguine, the police decision sued upon involved the manner in which the police had attempted to arrest an alleged felon, who committed suicide during the process. There, we found the police's decision as to what precautions, if any, to be employed to effectuate an arrest to be discretionary police functions for which there could be no tort liability. See 627 So.2d at 19 (stating that: "we think it best that such delicate law enforcement decisions be left to the discretionary judgment of the police without entangling the courts through our tort law in such fundamental law enforcement policies even where, as here, that judgment might in hindsight be arguably faulted either in whole or in part."). Here, Lucious Brown was not an alleged target of the sting operation at the hotel and the police were not attempting to arrest him. Therefore, the challenged conduct in this case did not involve an officer's discretionary conduct in making an arrest.
Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed.
. Henrietta Brown also brought a loss of consortium claim against the County.
. Indeed, the County argued below that the police were attempting to preclude Mr. Brown from entering the area of the sting operation at the time of the incident which gave rise to this lawsuit.