Opinion ID: 76910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mercado's Negligence Claims Against Orlando

Text: 48 Finally, Mercado alleged that Orlando was negligent in training and supervising its employees, and Orlando defends on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Although Florida Statute § 768.28(1) waives sovereign immunity for acts which would create liability for a private person, such waiver extends only to the government's operational, not discretionary acts. Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260, 1262 (11th Cir.2001). 6 Even though the officers had a duty of care with respect to Mercado because he was in custody, Moore v. State, 861 So.2d 1251, 1253 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2003), he must show that the training and supervision of the defendant officers constituted an operational duty before it can seek to recover any damages.
49 For Mercado to state a claim for negligent training, he must show that Orlando was negligent in the implementation or operation of the training program. He cannot merely challenge the content of the program. The determination of the content of a training program is a discretionary function for the city which is afforded sovereign immunity. Lewis, 260 F.3d at 1266. Because Mercado only challenges the content of the program, not the way in which the program was implemented, Orlando is entitled to sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.
50 The Florida Supreme Court recognized the tort of negligent retention as early as 1954, stating that the employer cannot knowingly keep a dangerous servant on the premises which defendant knew or should have known was dangerous and incompetent[.] Mallory v. O'Neil, 69 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla.1954). To state a claim of negligent retention of employees, Mercado must show that Orlando was put on notice of the harmful propensities of the employees. Willis v. Dade County Sch. Bd., 411 So.2d 245, 246 n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1982). Because Mercado has not brought forth any evidence that Orlando had notice that either of the officers had harmful propensities or was otherwise unfit to serve as a police officer, he cannot state a claim for negligent supervision. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's rulings as to Mercado's claims for both negligent training and negligent supervision. 51 AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED and REMANDED in part.