title
Jacob T. Rodgers v. William Stormant, and City of Gainesville, d/b/a Gainesville Regional Utilities; Eighth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 2016-CA-659 (NB)
recommendation
The City Commission authorize the City Attorney to: (1) process payment of the remaining outstanding invoice in the amount of $133,209.89 for fees and costs already incurred; and (2) issue a supplemental retention letter to Holland & Knight, with an additional cap of $475,000 for fees and costs, to continue to serve as outside counsel representing the City in this litigation and the claims bill process.
explanation
On July 16, 2020, the City Commission approved the expenditure of up to $475,000 for the law firm of Holland & Knight to represent the City in connection with the above-referenced lawsuit and to advocate on the City's behalf with respect to any claims bill filed with the Legislature arising from any adverse judgment in connection with the lawsuit. As this matter proceeded to a time intensive, full jury trial (as explained below), there is an outstanding invoice in the amount of $133,209.89 for fees and costs already incurred that remains to be paid by the City. In addition, the plaintiff is now appealing the trial court remittitur (as explained below) and the claims bill process has not yet been initiated. Outside counsel has provided an updated fee and cost estimate of $475,000 for the remaining post-trial motions, appeal, and expected multi-year claims bill process; however, this does not include a new trial (if that is ordered by the Court). If that occurs, an updated estimate will be provided and the City Attorney's Office will place an item on the Commission agenda for approval of same.
History of this matter:
On October 7, 2015, a City-owned vehicle driven by a City employee collided with a vehicle carrying Plaintiff Rodgers as an unrestrained back-seat passenger. The City vehicle was assigned to the City employee as a take-home vehicle. Prior to the accident, the City employee was heading home after using the gym located on the campus of his City office. The employee made a slight detour from a direct route home to check if an electrical substation was properly secured. After visually checking the gate, the employee made a u-turn and proceeded back toward home. The employee then failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with the pickup truck carrying the Plaintiff. The pickup truck rolled over and ejected two passengers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries, including paralysis of his lower extremities.
In February 2016, the Plaintiff filed suit against the City employee, personally, and added the City as a defendant in June 2017. From the outset of the claim, and the ensuing litigation, the City has taken the position that it is shielded from liability by the operation of sovereign immunity. In short, the City asserted that its employee-driver was operating outside the course and scope of employment. To the extent that any liability could attach to the City, the City has relied on the damages cap on liability ($200,000 per person/$300,000 per incident) set forth in the limited waiver of sovereign immunity contained in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
Initially, the City proceeded with discovery focused primarily on liability issues and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting the protections of sovereign immunity. The trial court entered an Order Denying City of Gainesville's Motion for Summary Judgment dated October 24, 2018. The City then filed a Notice of Appeal with the 1st DCA and Oral Argument was held on May 9, 2019. On May 22, 2019, the 1st DCA issued a per curiam decision affirming the denial of the City's Motion for Final Summary Judgment without opinion.
After the case came back to the trial court, the City attempted to settle the matter within the $200,000 sovereign immunity cap. The Plaintiff, through counsel, declined to settle at the sovereign immunity cap, and was adamant that the Plaintiff would proceed to trial and seek a claims bill from the Florida Legislature. Given the inability to resolve the case, the City retained Holland & Knight LLP as outside counsel to serve as trial counsel and to represent the City in the legislative claims bill process.
Trial was conducted in early May 2021. The trial court, overruling objections by the City and relying on its previous denial of the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, disallowed any defense based on the whether the City employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment. The issue was preserved for appeal. Despite uncontroverted evidence that the Plaintiff failed to make use of an operational seatbelt, and that such failure was the sole cause of his ejection and injury, and evidence that the driver of the Plaintiff's vehicle exceeded the posted speed limit, the jury found the City to be 100% responsible for the Plaintiff's damages. The jury reached a verdict of $120,000,000 against the City. The City filed post-trial motions seeking a reduction in damages awarded and, on August 20, 2021, the trial court issued a remittitur reducing the judgment against the City to $13,000,000. The Plaintiff has appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeals.
To the extent any judgment above $200,000 exists after all appeals are exhausted, the Plaintiff may file a claims bill to collect the excess from the City. Any claims bill must be heard and approved by both houses of the Florida Legislature and signed by the Governor. In the event a claims bill is approved directing the City to appropriate and pay Plaintiff a sum in excess of $200,000, the City plans to cover such liability with currently available utility system operating funds or through a System borrowing.
fiscal impact
Funds for payment of outside counsel fees and costs in this case are paid from utility system operating funds.