City of Tampa v. Foottit
The Second District affirmed the denial of the City of Tampa's summary judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(d) for injuries caused by a driver fleeing a 14-minute, 19-mile high-speed police pursuit. The court held genuine issues of material fact existed on all three statutory prongs — whether the officer's conduct was so reckless as to disregard human life, whether he reasonably believed a forcible felony had been committed (the dispatch was a 'signal 10' auto theft, not a burglary), and whether the pursuit complied with TPD's written pursuit policy.
Key facts
- City of Tampa appealed the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion claiming sovereign immunity under section 768.28(9)(d) for injuries caused by a third party during a police pursuit initiated by one of the City's officers.
- An officer engaged in a 14-minute, 19-mile high-speed pursuit at speeds up to 105 mph in response to a dispatch reporting a stolen vehicle ('signal 10'), driving at night without backup, through multiple red lights, and with one hand on the wheel.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is one of the fuller Second District treatments of the police-pursuit immunity statute since City of New Port Richey v. Lamko, and it gives plaintiffs' counsel a roadmap for defeating summary judgment on all three… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.