MICHAEL J. FRANKLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1988-11-30
No. 87-3157
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
534 So. 2d 828 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1988) Caution
Cited by 11 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Franklin sought reversal of a dismissal for failure to comply with statutory notice requirements under Florida's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court held that a notice of claim that identified the claimant in the header and described the accident, time, location, and nature of injuries provided substantial compliance with the statute, despite failing to specifically name Franklin in the body of the notice.


Holding

The notice substantially complied with statutory requirements. Although the failure to include Franklin's name in the body was an oversight, the notice adequately informed the agencies of the accident's time and location and that a claim was being made, fulfilling the statute's purpose and causing no prejudice.


Headnotes

[1] A written notice of a claim against a governmental entity is sufficient if it identifies the occurrence, its time and location, and that injuries were suffered and a clai…

[2] The purpose of the notice requirement under section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes, is to inform the governmental agency of the accident so that it may investigate.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“since section 768.28(6) does not specify the form or manner of submitting the claim, except that it be in writing, it follows that any manner of submitting a written notice of the claim to the agency involved that sufficiently describes or identifies the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it, satisfies the statute.”

Establishes that the statute requires only written notice that adequately describes the occurrence; no specific format is mandated.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Franklin and Clowdus, a passenger, were injured when struck by a van while driving a motorcycle on State Road A1A in Jupiter, Florida. On February 8, …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
DOWNEY, Judge.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant, Michael J. Franklin, seeks reversal of a final order that dismissed his complaint with prejudice for the reason that Franklin failed to comply with the notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), prior to initiating this action.

It appears that Franklin sustained injuries while driving his motorcycle on State Road A1A in Jupiter, Florida, when he was struck by a van pulling out from an adjacent strip of land. Charles Clowdus, a passenger on the motorcycle, was also injured.

On February 8,1985, appellant and Clow-dus sent a joint notice of claim to the county by certified mail, pursuant to section 768.28(6)(a). Copies of the notice were also mailed to the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Department of Transportation. The Notice of Claim was headed: “IN RE: JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, CHARLES CLOWDUS & MICHAEL FRANKLIN.” However, the body of the notice of claim made reference only to Clowdus.

By amended complaint, Franklin sued the Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County seeking damages for his injuries. That complaint alleged compliance with the notice requirement of section 768.-28(6)(a).1 However, the county moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that no notice had ever been afforded the county that Franklin had made any claim against it arising out of the alleged accident. From a final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice, Franklin has perfected this appeal.

The issue presented for our resolution is whether the notice actually given to the appellees substantially complies with the statutory requirements in question.

We begin with the recognition that the legislature, in mandating notice as a condition precedent to the commencement of suit under the waiver of sovereign immunity section of Chapter 768, failed to provide any particular format for said notice. Section 768.28(6)(a) provides only that the claimant present the claim in writing to the appropriate agencies within three years after the claim accrues. Therefore, as the court stated in Whitney v. Marion County Hospital District, 416 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982),

[sjince section 768.28(6) does not specify the form or manner of submitting the claim, except that it be in writing, it follows that any manner of submitting a written notice of the claim to the agency involved that sufficiently describes or identifies the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it, satisfies the statute.

The notice involved here advises the agencies that the subject matter at hand involves Charles Clowdus (the passenger) and Michael Franklin. The notice then describes the accident location and date and informs them that the writer represents Charles Clowdus for injuries sustained in the accident. The failure to include Franklin’s name at that point was an oversight. However, the purpose of the notice had been fulfilled. The agencies were on notice of an accident, its time and location and that injuries were suffered and a claim was being made. Thus, no prejudice could be asserted from the oversight regarding Franklin.

The County relies upon Levine v. Dade County School Board, 442 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1983), for the proposition that the requirements of this statute, being a part of the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, must be strictly construed. While we hon-or that admonition, we believe it inapplicable to the facts of this case. The Levine court was dealing with a failure of notice to the Department of Insurance as required. We are dealing here with the adequacy of the notice as given and find it adequate under the circumstances.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . Section 768.28(6)(a) provides in pertinent part:

(6)(a) An action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions unless the claimant presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency, and also, except as to any claim against a municipality, presents such claim in writing to the Department of Insurance, within 3 years after such claim accrues and the Department of Insurance or the appropriate agency denies the claim in writing....

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • LaRIVIERE v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 889 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
    …re, “it follows that any manner of submitting a written notice of the claim to the agency involved that sufficiently describes or identifies the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it, satisfies the statute.” Franklin v. Palm Beach County, 534 So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Smart v. Monge, 667 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Nevertheless, the notice, in any form, must be sufficiently direct and specific to reasonably put the department on notice of the existence of the claim and demand. The not…
  • Ingersoll v. Warren Hoffman, D.D.S., 561 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …tatutes (1987). This appeal is brought from an order granting the motion and dismissing the suit. What is really at issue here is not whether formal notice was sent, but whether the notice sent was adequate. See e.g., Franklin v. Palm Beach County, 534 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) ("We are dealing here with the adequacy of the notice as given”). Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the notice of claim requirement is jurisdictional as the majority maintains, the notice given in this case sufficiently s…
  • Aitcheson v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 117 So. 3d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …ut the department on notice of the existence of the claim and demand.” Id. This notice must be written and must “sufficiently describef ] or identify] the occurrence so that the agency may investigate it[J” Id. (quoting Franklin v. Palm Beach Cnty., 534 So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)). This court previously has held that, although a notice did not include the plaintiffs name, it nevertheless was sufficient [*857] and satisfied section 768.28(6)(a) because it put the agencies “on notice of an accident, i…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw