Department of Transportation v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida
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
- State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of DentistryDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
- State v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Florida · 1908
- Pan-Am Tobacco v. Department of CorrectionsSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP.Supreme Court of Florida · 2005
- Lowry v. Parole and Probation Com'nSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.