Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
School Bd. of Broward County v. Greene
Citations: 739 So. 2d 668; 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 11570; 1999 WL 641802Docket: 98-0726
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 25, 1999; Florida; State Appellate Court
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, affirmed a final judgment awarding Andrew Greene $850,000 in damages against the School Board of Broward County, while reversing the trial court's denial of the School Board's motion to limit the judgment's collectibility under Florida's sovereign immunity statute, section 768.28. The court ordered that the collectibility be limited to $100,000, as stipulated by the statute which caps liabilities for state entities. Greene, while a candidate for a School Board seat, alleged negligence and invasion of privacy after the School Board released derogatory statements from an earlier disciplinary investigation without notifying him, violating section 231.291(3)(a)3 of Florida Statutes. The jury found the School Board negligent for the release and awarded damages, but the issues of how the derogatory information was placed in Greene's personnel file were not submitted to the jury. On appeal, both parties agreed the judgment should be limited by the sovereign immunity statute, but they differed on whether the case involved one or two incidents. The School Board claimed there was only one incident—the public release of information—while Greene argued there were two incidents: the placement of information in his file and its subsequent release. However, neither the jury instructions nor the verdict form addressed the issue of the placement of information in the personnel file. In Pierce v. Town of Hastings, 509 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the court addressed Pierce's claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment stemming from two separate arrests for the same ordinance violation. The jury awarded Pierce $65,000 in damages, but due to sovereign immunity laws limiting recovery to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident, the court ruled that each arrest was a distinct incident, allowing recovery of $50,000 for each. Despite having two legal theories for recovery, the total was capped at $100,000. In a related case involving Greene, allegations of negligence and invasion of privacy concerning the School Board's release of derogatory information were also examined. The jury's award was based on this single incident, leading to a cap of $100,000 under the same sovereign immunity statute, regardless of the number of claims. The court concluded Greene's judgment should be limited to $100,000 and reversed parts of the initial ruling while affirming others.