From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. School Board of Orange Cty

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 11, 1974
301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Summary

construing Fla.Stat.Ann. § 234.03 (West's 1977)

Summary of this case from Barr v. Bernhard

Opinion

No. 73-1028.

October 11, 1974.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, B.C. Muszynski, J.

T.G. LaGrone, of LaGrone Baker, Orlando, for appellant.

Jeffrey E. Streitfeld, of Hoffman, Hendry, Parker Smith, Orlando, for appellees.


As a result of an accident involving an Orange County school bus, appellant Sharon Patricia Holmes sued the Board of Public Instruction, the bus driver, and the insurance carrier for the Board, appellees herein.

Initially the appellee insurance carrier advised appellant that its policy limits were $100,000 for each person injured. However, just prior to trial appellees determined the policy limit was only $10,000. Based on that knowledge appellees made an offer of judgment for the policy limit and moved to dismiss the cause on the ground that the School Board was protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as to any damages in excess of $10,000, citing § 234.03, F.S., in support of its motion. The court granted said motion as to all appellees and this appeal resulted.

We have reviewed all of the points designated and find them to be without merit. We do feel compelled to comment on one of the points however.

Even though the Board of Public Instruction enjoyed sovereign immunity as to any claim in excess of its insurance coverage, the driver of the school bus does not. Annot. School Officers — Negligence — Liability, 32 A.L.R.2d 1163, § 8 at 1194. However, at the hearing on motion to dismiss counsel for appellant announced his acquiescence in the dismissal as to the driver if the court ruled that the School Board had not waived immunity by stating its policy limits were $100,000. It was appellant's position then that there was no point in proceeding to trial against an impecunious driver.

One may not assert error upon an action of the trial court in which he himself has acquiesced. Karl v. David Ritter Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 23, 24.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

CROSS, J., and VANN, HAROLD, Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Holmes v. School Board of Orange Cty

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Oct 11, 1974
301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

construing Fla.Stat.Ann. § 234.03 (West's 1977)

Summary of this case from Barr v. Bernhard
Case details for

Holmes v. School Board of Orange Cty

Case Details

Full title:SHARON PATRICIA HOLMES, APPELLANT, v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, A…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Oct 11, 1974

Citations

301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing Cases

Commodore Plaza, Century 21 v. Cohen

Therefore, having acquiesced in these procedures, the appellant cannot now challenge the trial court's…

Young v. State

But, he fails to explain how the matter raised is cognizable on a direct appeal. It is a very basic premise…