Case Name: CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Danny C. FOWLER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-04-24
Citations: 474 So. 2d 820
Docket Number: No. 84-195
Parties: CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Danny C. FOWLER, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 474
Pages: 820–825

Head Matter:
CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Danny C. FOWLER, Appellee.
No. 84-195.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 24, 1985.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 18, 1985.
Melanie G. May and James B. Denman of Bunnell, Denman & Woulfe, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Michael S. Gellert, Margate, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment adverse to the City in a malicious prosecution action. In 1981 Danny Fowler was a construction job site supervisor for a corporation named Raben-Pastal on a project in Coconut Creek. A dispute arose between the developer and certain building officials, employees of the City of Coconut Creek. The developer claimed that Ronald Thomas, a building inspector, had been relentlessly harassing both Fowler and the developer of the project.
It became necessary to do a "load test" on the building. James Cowley, the chief municipal building official, retained the engineering firm of D.E. Britt and Associates to conduct inspections on behalf of the City. This firm had expertise in the area of post tension construction. This expertise was required for the load test but not found in the City's engineering staff.
Fowler presented evidence that the developer and the City entered into an agreement which provided that Mr. Thomas would not visit the job site during the load test. The City, on the other hand, denied the existence of this agreement. The verdict on the malicious prosecution claim indicates the jury believed Fowler in this regard.
During the load test on May 21, 1981, Thomas showed up and demanded access for inspection purposes. Fowler, relying on the agreement, refused. An argument developed and Fowler called the developer who in turn contacted the police in order to have Thomas removed. When the police arrived, however, they arrested Fowler. Fowler was given a notice to appear and released.
The City prosecuted Fowler for violation of Section 201.8 of the South Florida Building Code, which requires developers to admit building inspectors upon presentation of adequate credentials. Fowler was acquitted.
Fowler then brought an action for malicious prosecution and false arrest against Thomas, Cowley, and the City of Coconut Creek. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Thomas and Cowley, but not in favor of the City. The jury returned a verdict against the City for malicious prosecution, and awarded damages in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City on the false arrest claim.
When the jury calculated damages, however, they apparently considered the injury, both physical and emotional, which Fowler suffered as a result of the false arrest. Fowler testified at great length concerning the shame, humiliation, and other consequences of the arrest. On the other hand, there was virtually no evidence presented to the jury that indicated that Fowler was in any way damaged by the prosecution. The arrest constituted the sole focus of all Fowler's claims of injury. Since he lost on the false arrest claim, the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of the arrest cannot be considered under the malicious prosecution claim.
There was no factual basis for the jury's award of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars in damages, therefore, this case must be reversed on the authority of City of Miami v. Graham, 311 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976).
This case must also be reversed under the authority of Section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes (1979). A 1980 amendment to the statute added the present language which explicitly stated: "The state or its subdivisions shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an . employee . committed . with malicious purpose...." The statute now affirmatively disallows suits against municipalities for the malicious acts of their employees.
For the reasons stated herein, the decision of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
CARLISLE, JAMES T., Associate Judge, concurs specially with opinion.