Opinion ID: 1914715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: City of St. Petersburg v. Collom

Text: Collom is a wrongful death action. In Collom, the complaint alleged that during a heavy rainstorm the plaintiff's wife and daughter were walking across private property and unknowingly stepped into a storm sewer drainage ditch located on a city drainage easement, and were sucked into a pipe and drowned. In his complaint, Collom alleged that the city failed to guard the opening to the storm sewer by failing to place screens, bars, or other protective devices over the opening of its pipe. Further, Collom alleged the city failed to warn of a hazardous condition so that human beings would not be dragged into the sewer during heavy rains and storms. The trial judge granted the city a summary judgment, holding that the plan and design of the drainage ditch and pipe ... to exclude the utilization of bars, grates, screens, fencing and/or other protective devices was a matter of discretional immunity so that liability did not attach as a matter of law. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that [i]mmunity of a government for negligently performing an act no longer exists, so that once a government decides to act, whether out of obligation or free choice, it must act responsibly and reasonably under the existing circumstances, and in accordance with acceptable standards of care and common sense. 400 So.2d at 508. The district court rejected the city's argument that even though the project might be inherently dangerous the city could not be liable because it planned the system in that manner. The court held that a blueprint is not a plan in the sense of the `planning' that is discretionary, and once the `planning' has been done, the plans that are then prepared can indeed give rise to liability. Id. at 509. Further, in addressing the issue of the availability of funds to the entity to build the project, the court held that a governmental entity could not be free to adopt an expensive plan for alleviating a problem and then cut costs by eliminating the safety features. Id. The court held that governments are expected to exercise [the] prudence and reason required of individuals. Id. The city seeks reversal of the district court's action, contending that the adoption of a drainage system plan entails judgmental, planning-level decisions on the part of both the governmental officials who design the system and the governmental entity which approves and funds the plan. According to the city, decisions concerning when and in what manner to build a drainage system should not be subject to second-guessing by a judge or jury. Collom contends that the district court decision should be approved because once the city's decision-making process is complete, liability may attach to the manner in which such plans are implemented. Once the city had notice of the hazardous condition, Collom asserts, an operational-level function arose, requiring the city to remedy or give notice of the hazard, and its failure to do so establishes liability.