City of Opa Locka v. Hill

(specially concurring).

I concur with the majority view that the order is not ripe for review; however, I disagree with the majority’s apparent decision that the order on appeal does not determine the issue of liability in favor of appellee.

Appellee, Carolyn Hill, did not file an action against Stacey Hill, the City’s employee; he is not a defendant. Appellee sought summary judgment as to Counts I (negligence of Opa Locka through Hill) and IV (loss of filial consortium) of the amended complaint. In Count I, appellee alleged that during the course and scope of his employment by the City, Hill…