203 So. 3d 974
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent suffered a medical emergency; his wife, Annette Jordan, called 911 and reported breathing difficulties.
- The 911 operator asked about his condition, said “help was on the way,” and later told Mrs. Jordan to “just leave [him] there” after he lost consciousness and fell.
- EMS was dispatched, arrived, administered CPR, but Decedent died.
- Plaintiff (Andrea Jordan, personal representative) sued the Hernando County Sheriff alleging negligent misrepresentations and instructions by the 911 operator that induced Mrs. Jordan not to render aid, placing Decedent in a greater zone of danger.
- The trial court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice, finding the Sheriff owed only a public-duty (Category II) obligation and Plaintiff failed to plead a special relationship; the court also denied further amendment.
- The Fifth District affirmed, holding (1) no special-relationship facts were sufficiently pleaded and (2) the undertaker’s doctrine did not apply because the 911 operator did not take control of the situation or increase the risk of harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheriff owed an actionable duty to Decedent (special-relationship under public-duty rule) | 911 operator made express assurances and Mrs. Jordan justifiably relied, creating a special relationship and duty to Decedent | 911 service is a Category II public-safety function; no individual duty absent special relationship and Plaintiff failed to plead required elements | Court: Dismissed — Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing an express promise, justifiable reliance, and harm from reliance required to establish a special relationship |
| Whether undertaker’s doctrine imposed liability (operator increased risk or controlled situation) | Operator’s assurances induced Mrs. Jordan not to render aid, increasing Decedent’s risk and triggering the undertaker’s doctrine | Operator merely gathered information and dispatched EMS; did not take control or increase risk | Court: Dismissed — undertaker’s doctrine inapplicable because operator did not assume control or create/increase the risk as in Dean |
Key Cases Cited
- Trianon Park Condo. Ass'n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1985) (framework dividing governmental functions into categories and explaining public-duty/special-relationship rule)
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2009) (standards for dismissal and analysis of governmental tort liability and undertaker’s doctrine)
- Pierre v. Jenne, 795 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (911 emergency call system is a Category II public-safety function; special-relationship test articulated)
- Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., 159 So.3d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (risk must be created or control assumed by defendant for liability; foreseeability alone insufficient)
- St. George v. City of Deerfield Beach, 568 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (factually distinct example where a special relationship was found based on failure to dispatch after assurances)
- Laskey v. Martin Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 708 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (recognizing 911 services as Category II and rejecting classification as Category IV)