State v. HarrisState v. Harris
That the legislature did not intend that negligent omissions be encompassed within
The alleged conduct of defendants appears to be squarely encompassed within the type of offense described in either
It is a well settled rule of statutory construction .. . that a special statute covering a particular subject matter is controlling over a general statutory provision covering the same and other subjects in general terms. In this situation “`the statute relating to the particular part of the general subject will operate as an exception to or qualification of the general terms of the more comprehensive statute to the extent only of the repugnancy, if any.‘”
Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 1959) (quoting Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen, 71 Fla. 158, 177, 71 So. 42, 47 (1916), quoting in turn State ex rel. Loftin v. McMillan, 55 Fla. 246, 250, 45 So. 882, 884 (1908)).
It also appears of particular significance that in 1984, after the Third District Court of Appeal‘s 1983 decision in Jakubczak, the legislature clarified
Accordingly, consistent in effect with Jakubczak, we do not conclude that the legislature meant to encompass within
Also, while, technically, the facts that
In addition, even if, contrary to Jakubczak,
AFFIRMED.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.