HomeMy WebLinkAbout1486 ..r
the general public by regulatory action, is staggering.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, C.J.,.and BERANEK, J., concur.
1. rSodlin v. City of Miami Beach,`201 So .2d 70 (Fla. 1967) .
2. "After reviewing the characterizations utilized by a
number of courts ,in attempting to ferret out those acts or
functions which remain immune from tort liability, the court -
proposed the following preliminary test:
Whatever the suitable characterization or label
might be, it would appear that any determination of a line of
demarcation between truly discretionary and other executive
and administrative processes, so far as susceptibility to
potential sovereign tort liability be concerned, would
necessitate a posing of at least the following four preliminary
questions: (1) Does the challenged act, omission, or decision
necessarily involve a basic governmental policy, program, or
objective? (2) Is the questioned act, omission, or decision
essential to the realization or accomplishment of that policy,
program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change
the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective?
(3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise
of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part
of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental
agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory,
or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act,
omission, or decision? If these preliminary questions can be
clearly and unecruivocally answered in the affirmative, then
the challenged act,. omission, or decision can, with a reasonable }
degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary govern-
mental process and nontortious, regardless of i.ts unwisdom. If,
however, one or more of the questions call for or suggest a
negative answer, then further inquiry may well become necessary,
depending upon the facts and circumstances involved."
Commercial Carrier at 1019.
i
`
. In order to identify those functions, we adopt the analysis
of Johnson v. State, supra, which distinguishes between the
'planning' and 'operational' levels of decision-making by gov=
ernmental agencies. In pursuance of .this case-by-case method
of proceeding, we comal?end utilization of the preliminary test
iterated in Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, supra,
as a usef ul tool for analysis." Commercial Carrier at 1022.
r
1919 ~0'i 16 A~1 i l ~ 2 6
FlLEO FRC F~C;:i:Ci J
SLLUCIE CGL`"iTY.FtA.
ROGER POITRAS
CLERK CIRC•J1 i CCCI~
~ ' ~
s
i
i
r
saoK 3~0 P~ 1484
-3-