238 So. 3d 430
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 28–29, 2012 a brush fire in Alachua County reduced visibility; FHP reopened I‑75 after earlier closures and monitoring. Shortly after, Vontavia Robinson died in a multi‑vehicle crash.
- Robinson’s estate (Jackson, personal representative) sued the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) for negligence in reopening I‑75.
- FHP moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity (and alternatively arguing no common‑law duty to the decedent).
- The trial court denied summary judgment, stating only that disputed issues of material fact existed, without expressly stating that FHP was not entitled to sovereign immunity “as a matter of law.”
- FHP appealed interlocutorily under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(xi) (appeal of nonfinal orders deciding sovereign immunity “as a matter of law”).
- The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the trial court’s order did not explicitly decide immunity as a matter of law, and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court about whether Rule 9.130 permits appeal when the record shows entitlement to immunity but the trial court did not explicitly rule on it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interlocutory appeal is permitted under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 when a trial court denies summary judgment but does not expressly state immunity is unavailable as a matter of law | Jackson: denial based on disputed facts is final for now; appeal not proper | FHP: order effectively denies sovereign immunity and Rule 9.130 permits interlocutory review when immunity is denied as a matter of law or the record shows entitlement | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: order did not explicitly determine immunity was unavailable “as a matter of law”; certified question to Fla. Supreme Court |
| Whether the trial court actually decided factual disputes that preclude summary judgment on immunity | Jackson: disputed factual issues exist as stated by the trial court | FHP: the record shows no genuine dispute on the immunity question; denial was erroneous as a matter of law | Court declined to reach the merits because interlocutory jurisdiction was lacking |
| Whether federal-state precedents (Mitchell/Scott/Johnson) or Florida’s stricter “explicit order” rule controls appealability | Jackson: Florida precedents require explicit facial ruling denying immunity | FHP: federal approach and recent Fla. cases/Rule amendment support review when the record shows immunity applies | Court followed Florida precedent requiring explicit facial determination and thus dismissed |
| Whether conflict in Florida law exists requiring Supreme Court clarification | Jackson: prior Florida cases (Hastings/Reeves/Culver) remain controlling | FHP: Beach Community Bank and 2014 Rule amendment indicate a narrower reading of “as a matter of law” is outdated | Court certified question to Fla. Supreme Court about whether Rule 9.130 permits appeal when record shows entitlement but trial court did not explicitly preclude the defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity is immunity from suit; interlocutory review permitted to extent denial turns on questions of law)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (Sup. Ct.) (orders denying immunity based on genuine factual disputes are not appealable)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct.) (appellate court may decide that disputed factual version is unsupported and treat issue as a pure question of law for interlocutory review)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (Sup. Ct.) (allowed interlocutory review on qualified immunity grounds; distinguished Johnson)
- Tucker v. Resha, 648 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.) (requested rule change permitting interlocutory review of qualified immunity orders that turn on law)
- Dep’t of Educ. v. Roe, 679 So. 2d 756 (Fla.) (declined to permit interlocutory appeals of sovereign immunity denials; factual inquiries often control)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla.) (statutory individual immunity treated more like qualified immunity; interlocutory review permitted where issue is law)
- Beach Community Bank v. City of Freeport, 150 So. 3d 1111 (Fla.) (permitted review where sovereign immunity question was a pure legal question; did not require that trial court’s order explicitly state immunity denial as a matter of law)
- Hastings v. Demming, 694 So. 2d 718 (Fla.) (Florida requires trial court order to specifically state immunity is unavailable "as a matter of law" for interlocutory appeal)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla.) (reaffirmed Hastings; appealed order must explicitly show denial "as a matter of law")