844 N.W.2d 652
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mayo and Hayslett were passengers in a State DOC van driven by Boyd on July 17, 2009, when the van overturned causing their injuries.
- Notices of Claim were timely served on the State under Wis. Stat. § 893.82(3); they described the date, location, and circumstances but not the exact time of the event.
- Amended notices filed December 15, 2009 referenced the approximate time of the accident as 10:35 p.m.
- Mayo and Hayslett filed suit on May 22, 2012 alleging negligent vehicle operation and related failures by Boyd, while acting as a DOC employee.
- Boyd moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to include the time of the event in the Notices; the circuit court granted the motion.
- The circuit court held that § 893.82(3) requires the approximate time, and dismissal followed; Mayo and Hayslett appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the time-of-event requirement in § 893.82(3) requires exact time. | Mayo/Hayslett argue exact time is impossible and unnecessary. | Boyd argues the statute demands the time of the event. | Time requirement not exact; exact time not required when not reasonably possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocampo v. City of Racine, 28 Wis. 2d 506 (1965) (strict compliance with notice conditions—unreasonable to require exact time)
- Riccitelli v. Broekhuizen, 227 Wis. 2d 100 (1999) (jurisdictional notice requirements; strict compliance required)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
- Sonnenburg v. Grohskopf, 144 Wis. 2d 62 (Ct. App. 1988) (favor construction that fulfills statutory purposes)
- Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 270 Wis.2d 356 (2004) (de novo review of statutory interpretation; plain meaning)