Wallace v. Dean

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida held that the undertaker's doctrine may impose a common-law duty on law-enforcement officers who respond to a 911 call, engage an injured person, and undertake a safety check. The court also held that the deputies' affirmative conduct was operational rather than discretionary, so sovereign immunity did not bar the plaintiff's negligence-based wrongful-death claim. The decision quashed the Fifth District Court of Appeal's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. When law-enforcement officers respond to a 911 call, actually engage an injured or helpless individual, and undertake a safety check, the undertaker's doctrine may impose a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care where the officers' conduct increases the individual's risk of harm or induces others who would have rendered aid to refrain from doing so.
2. The second amended complaint stated a valid negligence-based wrongful-death cause of action against the Sheriff in his official capacity.
3. Whether a governmental defendant owes a duty of care is analytically distinct from whether sovereign immunity bars suit; sovereign immunity is considered only after a duty and potential liability have been established.
4. The deputies' alleged conduct in carrying out a safety check under an existing 911 system was operational in nature, not quasi-legislative planning-level conduct, and sovereign immunity did not bar the claim.
5. The Supreme Court possessed and exercised discretionary conflict jurisdiction because the Fifth District's decision announced a rule conflicting with prior Florida decisions and applied law to substantially similar facts in conflict with Hartley v. Floyd.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Florida's undertaker's doctrine creates a common-law duty of care when law-enforcement officers respond to a 911 call, engage an apparently injured or helpless individual, and undertake a safety check.
2. Whether the allegations that the deputies increased the decedent's risk of harm and induced third-party reliance stated a negligence-based wrongful-death cause of action.
3. Whether the deputies' affirmative conduct in implementing an existing 911 response program was operational rather than planning-level conduct and therefore was not protected by sovereign immunity.
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Florida possessed discretionary conflict jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution.

Disposition

quashed