Summary of City of Tampa v. Foottit
(a) Facts
- Case: City of Tampa v. Christopher Foottit and Cynthia Foottit, Florida Second District Court of Appeal, No. 2D2024-0833 (Oct. 16, 2024).
- Parties: Appellant City of Tampa; Appellees Christopher and Cynthia Foottit.
- What Happened: On March 12, 2022, Tampa Police Officer Darrin Gibson initiated a high-speed chase after receiving a “signal 10” dispatch about a stolen Nissan truck (indicating auto theft, not burglary). The truck wasn’t being driven erratically when Gibson activated his lights, but it sped off, leading to a 14-minute, 19-mile pursuit. The chase involved speeds up to 105 mph, running red lights, and ended when the truck crashed into the Foottits’ Honda Civic on a dark, single-lane road, killing a passenger and seriously injuring the Foottits. They sued the City for negligence. The City claimed sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(d), Florida Statutes, in a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied. The City appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the denial.
- Judgment: The denial of summary judgment was affirmed due to disputed material facts regarding immunity.
(b) Issues
- Does the City of Tampa qualify for sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(d) for Officer Gibson’s actions during the pursuit?
- Are there genuine disputes of material fact about the officer’s conduct, his belief the suspect committed a forcible felony, and compliance with TPD’s pursuit policy?
(c) Holding
- The circuit court properly denied the City’s motion for summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding all three conditions required for sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(d).
(d) Rationale
- Immunity Requirements: Under section 768.28(9)(d), the City must prove:
- The officer’s pursuit wasn’t so reckless as to disregard human life, rights, safety, or property.
- The officer reasonably believed the fleeing suspect had committed a forcible felony (per section 776.08) when initiating the pursuit.
- The pursuit followed a written high-speed pursuit policy, and the officer was trained on it.
- Disputed Facts:
- Recklessness: Evidence showed Officer Gibson chased the truck at speeds up to 105 mph, ran red lights, drove with one hand, and continued for 19 miles without backup on a single-lane road at night. The crash’s severity ( likened to being “hit by a train”) suggests recklessness, creating a jury question.
- Reasonable Belief of Forcible Felony: The dispatch was a “signal 10” (theft, not a forcible felony), not a “signal 21” (burglary, a forcible felony). Gibson claimed he believed it was a burglary suspect, but the truck wasn’t driven erratically, and he didn’t identify the driver (a juvenile). Expert testimony and officer comments post-crash questioned this belief’s reasonableness.
- Pursuit Policy Compliance: TPD’s policy required weighing factors like speed, road conditions, and suspect identity. Expert Robert Pusins opined Gibson violated this policy, and officers at the scene suggested alternatives like “boxing in” the truck were ignored. Whether Gibson adhered to the policy and was adequately trained is disputed.
- Conclusion: These factual disputes prevent summary judgment; a jury must decide if immunity applies.
Direct link to the opinion: https://2dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2442019/opinion/Opinion_2024-0833.pdf/opinion/Opinion_2024-0833.pdf