Wilson v. City of Tampa
209 So. 3d 646
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Fannye Wilson sued the City of Tampa for injuries sustained on April 7, 2011, when a storm drain grate allegedly broke and she fell while on property at 1420 Jean Street, Tampa.
- Wilson filed a presuit written notice of claim on March 30, 2012, to the City’s Risk Management Department stating the place of accident as “Jean St., Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL on 4/7/2011.”
- The City moved to dismiss under section 768.28(6), arguing the notice was deficient for failing to give a specific street address, failing to state the time of the incident, and misidentifying Wilson’s sex; at hearing the City abandoned the last two grounds.
- The trial court dismissed Wilson’s complaint with prejudice, concluding the presuit notice failed to satisfy the statutory requirements.
- The Second District reversed, holding the statute requires only (1) a written claim and (2) an assertion of a claim for compensation, and that Wilson’s notice satisfied both and was sufficient to allow investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson’s presuit written notice complied with §768.28(6)(a) | Wilson: Notice need only be written and assert a claim for compensation; her notice met those requirements and was sufficient to allow investigation | City: Notice was deficient because it failed to provide the precise street address of the storm drain (and initially other details) | Court: Statute requires written notice and a demand for compensation; specific pinpoint address not required—Wilson’s notice was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Dade Cty. v. Reyes, 688 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1996) (waivers of sovereign immunity strictly construed)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (statutory interpretation begins with the plain text to discern legislative intent)
- Smart v. Monge, 667 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (written notice must notify the agency of a claim; demand for compensation required)
- LaRiviere v. South Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (statute lacks specificity as to required contents of notice)
- Vargas v. City of Fort Myers, 137 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (notice must be sufficiently direct and specific to reasonably put the agency on notice)
- Otero v. City of Hialeah, 731 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (lack of precise address does not necessarily render notice defective)
- Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1956) (courts should avoid strained constructions that impose minute details beyond statutory requirement)