This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: officers,
who were not in uniform, is readily available in the county and can be easily reproduced
and forged. Further, the court found that none of the instances of the officers'
employment misconduct was sufficiently egregious to charge the city with knowledge
that the officers would commit murder and [**37] that their actions were so bizarre as to
be beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the city's negligence.
Appellant also maintains that the element of foreseeability is not present in this case and
that, at most, Tallahassee Furniture's employment of Turner merely provided the occasion
for Harrison to give Turner the television set and for Turner to use the television as a
pretext to contact Harrison. Again, we disagree. As stated by this court in Paterson v.
Deeb, 472 So.2d 1210, 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1986):
In determining foreseeability, it is not necessary to "be able to foresee the exact nature
and extent of the injuries or the precise manner in which the injuries occur"; it is only
necessary that "the tortfeasor be able to foresee that some injury will likely result in some
manner as a consequence of his negligent acts." Crislip v. Holland, 401 So.2d 1115,
1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). (emphasis in original).
It would seem almost unnecessary in these times to require proof of the correlation
between a person's history of unlawful and violent behavior, [**38] drug abuse, and 45 mental illness, and that person's propensity for future dangerousness. Nevertheless,
appellee established such a correlation through extensive testimony of police officers,
psychologists, and an expert in criminology, Professor White. While it is true, as
explained by Professor White, that the [*758] science of future behavior has not
developed to the point of permitting one to predict the time or exact nature of future acts,
the best indicator of potentially-dangerous future conduct is the history of a person's past
conduct. The jury could have found, and no doubt did find, that had appellant made
reasonable inquiry, it could have learned that Turner had been convicted of a violent
battery on his former wife with a knife, had numerous other criminal charges involving
violence, and had undergone periods of hospitalization for drug abuse and serious mental
illness. As not...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08