443 So. 2d 276 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1983
On September 18, 1981, Robert Dean Rose commenced an action against the Department of Transportation (hereafter DOT) by serving a complaint on the department. Also named in the complaint as a defendant was General Portland, Inc. The suit was based upon the alleged negligence of the defendants which resulted in a vehicular accident, injuring Rose.
On October 19, 1981, DOT responded to the complaint by motion for change of venue on the ground that venue did not lie in Dade County for the claim against DOT due to the agency’s common law venue privilege.
On September 10, 1982, DOT received a summons and third-party complaint from General Portland, naming DOT as a third-party defendant in the action and seeking contribution. DOT responded to the third-party complaint by serving a motion to dismiss and/or for change of venue, again claiming its common law venue privilege. On March 3, 1983, a hearing was held on the motion. On March 11, 1983, the court denied the request for change of venue. This appeal followed.
The sole point raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant Department of Transportation’s motion for change of venue. We have carefully considered the appellant’s point in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the trial court was correct in denying the motion for change of venue from Dade to Leon County.
Section 768.28(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides, inter alia, that an action may be brought against a state agency in the county where the accident took place.
Since section 768.28 applied to General Portland’s third-party action for contribution against DOT, the trial court was correct in ruling that Dade County was a proper venue for this action. The order appealed is, accordingly, affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The privilege allowed the state, its agencies, political subdivisions and public officers to be sued only in the county where they maintained their principal headquarters. Henderson v. Gay, 49 So.2d 325 (Fla.1950); Smith v. Williams, 160 Fla. 580, 35 So.2d 844 (1948).
. ... Any such action may be brought in the county where the property in litigation is located or, if the affected agency or subdivision has an office in such county for the transaction of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued.