Legal Opinion · Dissent

Department of Transportation v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 11, 2013No. 2D12-1097Published

1DissentWallace, Judge

I respectfully dissent. DOT’S predecessor, the State Road Department, did not have specific statutory authority to agree to the indemnity clause in the crossing agreement with the railroad.7 For this reason, I conclude that the indemnity clause is void and unenforceable.

I. INTRODUCTION

The majority states that “[t]he only issues on appeal concern the enforceability of the crossing agreement.” (maj. op. at § III) I disagree. In my view, the issues on appeal concern the enforceability of the indemnity clause contained in the crossing agreement. The parties agree that DOT has the authority…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of DentistryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  2. State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
  3. Pan-Am Tobacco v. Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  4. American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP.Supreme Court of Florida · 2005
  5. Lowry v. Parole and Probation Com'nSupreme Court of Florida · 1985

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API