HomeMy WebLinkAbout1485 doctrine"1 and we cannot quarrel with its demise. However we
note that the Modlin message was at least easy to discern and
apply. By contrast the new test substituted in Commercial
Carrier appears to us to be a complex four point test,2 which
might with some judicial straining, be construed either to
exempt each and every governmental action, or alternatively,
exclude none of them. However the bottom line in Commercial
Carrier seems to be that "planning" levels of government decision
making are still exempt from tort liability while "operational"
activity is not.
Suffice it to say that the Commercial Carrier case
involved failure to maintain a stop sign or paint a road, while
Cheney centered round a disabled traffic signal. In the case
at bar we likewise have an alleged failure to maintain a stop
sign which would clearly be operational in nature. The result
is inescapable.
It remains to be seen whether the legislature in
enacting Section 768.28 of the Florida Statutes (1975), or the
Supreme Court in Commercial Carrier, ever considered the
specter of governmental authorities being found negligent and
liable for the routine acts and inspections by their building
and plumbing officials, just to quote two examples. (In the
now defunct Modlin case a building inspector was involved.)
Certainly in the light of the recent myriad of law suits filed
against developers for shoddy construction and failure to abide
by specifications, it will be interesting to see what develops.
We might also reflect on what might come forth out of the
State's requirement that automobiles be routinely inspected.
In fact the possible permutations resulting in the Govern-
went bearing the financial responsibility for the misdeeds of
the private sector, simply because it is trying to saf eguard
-2- ~
8~3~p P,~~,4g,