Pollock v. Florida Dept. of Highway Patrol

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a finding that the Florida Department of Highway Patrol did not have an underlying common law or statutory duty of care to motorist was determinative and, therefore, a sovereign immunity analysis was unnecessary
• finding that there was no statutory duty because the police action at issue was in furtherance of a category II activity
• holding “a determination that a governmental actor owed a duty of care with regard to the allegedly negligent conduct is a prerequisite” to determining tort liability
• noting that “a written policy or manual may be instructive in determining whether the alleged tortfeasor acted negligently in fulfilling an independently established duty of care”
• “[I]f a duty of care is owed, it must then be determined whether sovereign immunity bars an action for an alleged breach of that duty.”
• “[I]f a duty of care is owed, it must then be determined whether sovereign immunity bars an action for an alleged breach of that duty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).