BETTY COWEN RIBLER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellant's wrongful death action against Broward County was dismissed because the complaint failed to allege compliance with Florida Statute Section 95.08, which requires that claims against a county be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year of accrual. The court affirmed the dismissal, rejecting appellant's request to depart from settled law applying this statute to tort claims.
F.S. Section 95.08 applies to tort claims against a county, including claims arising from proprietary or non-governmental functions. A complaint must allege compliance with the statute as a prerequisite to stating a valid cause of action against a county. Appellant's action was barred because the complaint failed to allege such compliance and the appellant conceded that no notice was given within the required one-year period.
[1] A complaint against a county for wrongful death must allege compliance with F.S. …
[2] F.S. …
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Every claim against any county shall be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year from the time said claim shall become due, and shall be barred if not so presented.”
The statutory language of F.S. Section 95.08 that governs notice requirements for claims against counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's husband was killed in a plane crash at an airport operated by Broward County in November 1968. Appellant filed a wrongful death action in …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Claim Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant’s husband was killed in November, 1968, when an airplane piloted by him crashed at an airport operated by Bro-ward County. In November, 1970, appellant filed a wrongful death action against Broward County (and another) alleging that decedent’s death was due to negligent maintenance of the airport. The complaint did not allege compliance with F.S. Section 95.08, F.S.A.,1 as a result of which the court dismissed the complaint as against Broward County. Upon appellant declining to amend, the presently appealed final judgment was entered in favor of Broward County.
Appellant suggests that the question on appeal is whether F.S. Section 95.08, F.S. A. is applicable to a tort claim. However, she candidly acknowledges that the courts have heretofore applied the statute to tort claims and forthrightly ask that we depart from such holdings, suggesting that they are incorrect.
It appears to be settled law in this jurisdiction that not only does F.S. Section 95.08, F.S.A. apply to tort claims against a county, Waite v. Dade County, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 681; Kahl v. Board of County Com*239missioners of Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 522 (even when the claim arises as a result of propriety or nongovernmental functions performed by the county, Kahl v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, supra), but also that the complaint must allege compliance with the statute as a pre-requisite to stating a valid cause of action against the county, Whitehurst v. Hernando County, 1926, 91 Fla. 509, 107 So. 627.
The complaint in this case failed to allege compliance with the statute and on appeal appellant concedes as a fact that within one year of the time that the cause of action accrued no notice was given to the county of an intent to bring suit on the wrongful death action. On the authority of the cases above cited, the court correctly determined that appellant’s action against Broward County was barred and that the county was entitled to a judgment in its favor.
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pac. Indem. Co. v. Broward Cnty., 465 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1972)…ion against the county.” 107 So. at 628. See also, Fradley v. County of Dade, 187 So. 2d 48 (Fla.App.1966); Kahl v. Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, 162 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.1964). Most recently in Ribler v. Florida Power and Light Co., 254 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.1971), involving a suit against Broward County arising from its operation of this same airport, the court affirmed a judgment in favor of the County because the complaint failed to allege compliance with the statute. “It appears to be sett…
Authorities Cited
- Whitehurst v. Hernando Cnty., 91 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1926)
- Waite v. Dade Cnty., 74 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1954)
- Turnipseed v. Turnipseed, 162 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Kahl v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Dade Cnty., 162 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)