Opinion ID: 1702329
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Determination of Duty

Text: In the instant case, the petitioners contend that the duty of care owed by FHP to the decedents arose from two separate sources. First, the petitioners assert that as the governmental entity with the ultimate responsibility to patrol the state highways, and to control and regulate traffic, FHP had a common law duty to maintain the highway in a reasonably safe condition, to warn of known dangers on the roadway, and to correct any dangerous conditions. Second, the petitioners argue that FHP's policies and procedures governing incident response created a duty to dispatch an officer to the scene of the stalled tractor-trailer. [5] After a careful review of these contentions and controlling caselaw, we conclude that FHP had no such duty of care. The contention that FHP's common law duty to maintain the roadway and keep it free of obstructions is an outgrowth of its duty to patrol the state highways and control the movement of traffic misconstrues existing principles of duty and tort law. It is well settled that a public or private entity which owns, operates, or controls a property, including a roadway, owes a duty to maintain that property, and a corresponding duty to warn of and correct dangerous conditions thereon. See, e.g., Bailey Drainage Dist. v. Stark, 526 So.2d 678, 681 (Fla.1988) (holding that where a controlling governmental agency knowingly maintains an intersection it has a duty to warn of and make safe dangerous conditions that are not readily apparent); City of Orlando v. Heard, 29 Fla. 581, 11 So. 182, 184 (1892) (observing that the city must exercise due diligence in repairing defects after unsafe condition of the street or sidewalk is known or knowable); Jauma v. City of Hialeah, 758 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that the city had a nondelegable duty to maintain its roads, sidewalks, and rights-of-way in a reasonably safe condition even where a third party created the defect); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Metro. Dade County, 510 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (ascribing duty of care to the county as the landowner-lessor of a marina); Wojtan v. Hernando County, 379 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (recognizing county's responsibility as a landowner to free streets and sidewalks from obstruction created by another but about which the county knew or should have known). This theory based on concepts of premises liability does not apply, however, in the instant case where FHP had no ownership of or control over Florida's highways. See Alderman, 493 So.2d at 498 (determining that police had no duty to warn of leaning stop sign when they had no right to control or possess the intersections, roads, or stop signs). Indeed, a review of the pertinent statutory provisions reveals that the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the roads in this state falls to the Florida Department of Transportation and local governments for the roads within their respective jurisdictions. See § 335.04(2), Fla. Stat. (1993). By contrast, FHP's duties, as enumerated in section 321.05 of the Florida Statutes, are as follows: 321.05 Duties, functions, and powers of patrol officers.  The members of the Florida Highway Patrol ... shall perform and exercise throughout the state the following duties, functions, and powers: (1) To patrol the state highways and regulate, control, and direct the movement of traffic thereon; ... [and] to enforce all laws now in effect regulating and governing traffic, travel, and public safety upon the public highways and providing for the protection of the public highways and public property thereon.... § 321.05, Fla. Stat. (1993). Clearly, FHP's enabling statute does not afford the agency ownership or control over the state's roadways; therefore, FHP cannot be held to the standard of care that accompanies the right of ownership or control. Nor does FHP have a duty to remove stalled or abandoned vehicles from the state highways. Florida law authorizes, but does not establish a legal duty, nor require, FHP officers to provide for the removal of stalled or abandoned vehicles. See § 316.194(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1993). The statutory construct makes clear, however, that FHP's response to such disabled vehicles is permissive, rather than mandatory, and is in furtherance of its authority to enforce traffic laws, rather than pursuant to a duty to keep the highways free from obstructions. [6] Patrolling the state highways, controlling the flow of traffic, and enforcing the traffic laws are duties FHP owes to the general public, as opposed to an individual person. See Trianon Park Condo. Assoc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912, 921 (Fla.1985). [7] The responsibility to enforce the laws for the good of the public cannot engender a duty to act with care toward any one individual, unless an official assumes a special duty with regard to that person. See, e.g., Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936, 938 (Fla.1985); Holodak v. Lockwood, 726 So.2d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that in government tort suits, plaintiffs must prove that defendant breached a common law or statutory duty owed to the plaintiff individually and not a tort duty owed to the public generally). A special tort duty does arise when law enforcement officers become directly involved in circumstances which place people within a zone of risk by creating or permitting dangers to exist, by taking persons into police custody, detaining them, or otherwise subjecting them to danger. See, e.g., Kaisner, 543 So.2d at 735 (determining that officer had a duty to protect a detained motorist from the hazard of onrushing traffic); Brown v. Miami-Dade County, 837 So.2d 414, 418 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (determining that county officer implementing sting operation owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid harm to bystanders). The premise underlying this theory is that a police officer's decision to assume control over a particular situation or individual or group of individuals is accompanied by a corresponding duty to exercise reasonable care. [8] Where police officers, such as FHP in the instant case, have not arrived on the scene or assumed any degree of control over the situation, the zone of risk analysis has no application. See Henderson, 737 So.2d at 536. Florida courts have also determined that a special duty is established when a police officer makes a direct representation to a plaintiff, or one so closely involved with the plaintiff that their interests cannot be separated, that he or she will take a specified law enforcement action. See Brown v. City of Delray Beach, 652 So.2d 1150, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The assumption of a special duty guided the First District Court of Appeal's conclusion in Hartley v. Floyd, 512 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), a wrenching case where the wife of a man delinquent in returning from a fishing trip asked the local sheriff to inspect the boat ramp for signs of her husband's vehicle. The sheriff agreed to undertake the task, failed to do so, yet reported back to the wife that he saw no signs of the vehicle, a representation the wife relied upon in foregoing further search efforts for a period of time. See id. at 1023-24. Based on those facts, the district court held that notwithstanding the absence of any preexisting special duty to Mrs. Floyd, the sheriff's office .... having assumed the undertaking ... had an obligation to carry it out with reasonable care. Id. at 1024. The facts in Hartley stand in contrast to those in Dario v. Roth, 756 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where the district court held that a sheriff who had informed a caller that he would respond to reports of a loose deer had no duty to a different motorist who was subsequently injured in an automobile collision with the deer. See id. at 264-65. The principle applied in Hartley does not extend to the instant case, where FHP made no representation to either the decedents or their close relatives that a unit would be dispatched to the scene of the stalled tractor-trailer. Like the defendant in Dario, FHP did not, by word or deed, create a duty of care toward the decedents over and above its general duty to enforce the state's traffic laws. Thus, FHP owed no duty of care to the decedents to respond to the emergency call regarding the stalled tractor-trailer. We further conclude that FHP's internal operating procedures and policies did not impose a duty to dispatch officers to the scene of the stalled tractor-trailer. On this issue, we approve the reasoned analysis of the district court which concludes that, in the context of governmental tort litigation, written agency protocols, procedures, and manuals do not create an independent duty of care. [9] See Pollack, 745 So.2d at 450. While a written policy or manual may be instructive in determining whether the alleged tortfeasor acted negligently in fulfilling an independently established duty of care, it does not itself establish such a legal duty vis-a-vis individual members of the public. Accord Alderman, 493 So.2d at 497-98 (holding that FHP regulation requiring officers to report damaged road signs did not impose a duty to report damaged signs, repair them, or warn motorists of the potential dangers); see also Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 686 So.2d 801, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that a company's internal safety policies may serve as evidence relevant to standard of care but do not themselves establish that standard); Gunlock v. Gill Hotels Co., Inc., 622 So.2d 163, 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (same with regard to company policy); Metro. Dade County v. Zapata, 601 So.2d 239, 243-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (same with regard to rules governing conduct of county lifeguards). This principle applies, unless, of course, the sovereign adopts such protocols and procedures as standards of conduct, in which case there would exist an independent duty of care. See City of Jacksonville v. DeRay, 418 So.2d 1035, 1036-37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (affirming final judgment against the City for its failure to follow the protocols provided for in the traffic control devices manual which the City had adopted as the standard for signalization and street markings); State Dep't of Transp. v. Cooper, 408 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (same). Based on the foregoing, we determine that FHP had no special duty either to maintain the road on which this horrible accident occurred, or to dispatch officers in response to the emergency call. Importantly, we note that the duty analysis in the conflict cases cited by the district court below comports with our decision here. In Cook, the district court determined that law enforcement officials are generally not under a common law or statutory duty to report, repair, or warn motorists of damaged road signs. See Cook, 573 So.2d at 408. The Hoover court similarly determined that, in general, law enforcement officials have no common law or statutory duty to remove the vehicle that had obstructed the roadway and was struck by a motorist who was killed as a result. [10] See Hoover, 611 So.2d at 1333. These opinions diverge from our decision here today, however, in determining that whether internal policies and procedures create an independent duty of care is a fact question that must be taken as true in judging whether a trial court properly dismissed an action for failure to state a claim. See Cook, 573 So.2d at 408. Pursuant to our holding with regard to the legal force of internal operating policies, the assertion that such policies create an independent duty of care is legally erroneous, and cannot sustain an otherwise insufficient claim against a motion to dismiss. For that reason, we disapprove those portions of Cook and Hoover which provide that a claim can survive a motion to dismiss based on the contention that internal agency protocols and procedures create an independent duty not otherwise established by statutory or common law.