Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

306 So. 2d 606

Docket No. V-352.

State v. Negrin

STATE of Florida and the Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Esther F. NEGRIN, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 28, 1975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1975-01-28

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““. . . It is apparent therefore that the language of F.S. 337.19(3) that ‘All actions and suits brought against the department * * * shall be brought in the county or counties where the cause of action accrued or in Leon County’ was intended to relate to actions contemplated by Chapter 337 Florida Statutes and not tort actions.” (emphasis supplied)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State Department of Transportation v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc.

Relies on State Ex Rel. Davis v. Love · 295 So. 2d 314 - Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Com. Sh., Inc. v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-01-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2018

7 state decisions

4019751980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*607 Richard T. Jones and Barry D. Graves of Jones & Ritch, Gainesville, for appellants.

¶2Lynn M. LoPucki, Gainesville, for appellee.

¶3BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.

¶4We here again resolve an issue relating to the proper venue of suits against the State of Florida or one of its agencies.

¶5Appellee filed a negligence action in Alachua County against appellants, alleging that she was injured when an unknown person threw a brick from an overpass through the windshield of her car as she was traveling on the Sunshine State Parkway in Palm Beach County. Appellants moved for a change of venue to Leon County and appellee moved for a change of venue to Palm Beach County. The trial judge entered an order transferring the case to Palm Beach County, relying on F.S. 337.19(3).

¶6It is axiomatic that statutes must be read in para materia with other related statutes and other related portions of the same statute. An examination of Chapter 337 Florida Statutes readily reveals that it does not purport to govern tort actions nor tort liability. Indeed, the concluding clause of F.S. 337.19(1) specifically provides "That no suit sounding in tort shall be maintained against the department." Appellee urges that the latter provision is unconstitutional and therefore should be ignored as a part of the statute. (State ex rel. Davis v. Love, Sup.Ct. 1930, 99 Fla. 333, 126 So. 374) It is not necessary for us here to determine the constitutionality of that provision. Whether or not the quoted clause from subsection (1) of F.S. 337.19 is constitutional, it clearly reveals that the Legislature did not intend for that statute, F.S. 337.19, to be applicable to tort actions. It is apparent therefore that the language of F.S. 337.19(3) that "All actions and suits brought against the department … shall be brought in the county or counties where the cause of action accrued or in Leon County" was intended to relate to actions contemplated by Chapter 337 Florida Statutes and not tort actions. F.S. 337.19(3) may not therefore be construed as a waiver by the State or the Department of Transportation to be sued in Leon County. See Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Com. Sh., Inc. v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1974, 295 So.2d 314.)

¶7Appellants' motion for change of venue to Leon County should have been granted.

¶8Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

¶9McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

/306/so2d/606 · .json · Public domain