Otero v. City of Hialeah

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Otero v. City of Hialeah

731 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105, 1999 WL 228610

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1999

DocketNo. 98-449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 116 (Otero v. City of Hialeah) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otero v. City of Hialeah, 731 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105, 1999 WL 228610 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, J.

Hilda Otero appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, City of Hialeah, for failure to comply with section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997). We reverse.

Contrary to the City’s assertion, it is of no moment that the address on the notice, the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, was not the precise location of the incident; rather, the incident occurred in front of the Immaculate Conception School.

[A] just claim, if one exists, should not be denied by the application of strained constructions and the imposition of requirements for minute detail where an examination of the entire notice reveals that it furnishes to the City officials adequate information within the framework of the statutory requirements in sufficient detail to enable them to make a thorough investigation of the asserted claim.

Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So.2d 589, 591-92 (Fla.1956) (notice identifying 480-foot area of sidewalk sufficiently specific to survive summary judgment). The notice Otero provided the City was sufficient to allow the City to investigate, request more information, and make informed decisions regarding her claim. In fact, the City did ask Otero for additional information, to which Otero responded unreservedly. “As long as the notice describes the occurrence with sufficient detail to enable the [agency] to investigate, it fulfills the statutory requirement.” Metropolitan Dade County v. Coats, 559 So.2d 71, 72 (Fla. 8d DCA), review denied, 569 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1990). See Magee; Robinson v. City of Miami, 177 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Monchek v. City of Miami Beach, 110 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Because the notice was sufficient to present Otero’s claim to the appropriate agency, Section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and allow the City to investigate, summary judgment on this basis was error.

Accordingly we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHEVIN, J.

Hilda Otero appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, City of Hialeah, for failure to comply with section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997). We reverse.

Contrary to the City’s assertion, it is of no moment that the address on the notice, the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, was not the precise location of the incident; rather, the incident occurred in front of the Immaculate Conception School.

[A] just claim, if one exists, should not be denied by the application of strained constructions and the imposition of requirements for minute detail where an examination of the entire notice reveals that it furnishes to the City officials adequate information within the framework of the statutory requirements in sufficient detail to enable them to make a thorough investigation of the asserted claim.

Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So.2d 589, 591-92 (Fla.1956) (notice identifying 480-foot area of sidewalk sufficiently specific to survive summary judgment). The notice Otero provided the City was sufficient to allow the City to investigate, request more information, and make informed decisions regarding her claim. In fact, the City did ask Otero for additional information, to which Otero responded unreservedly. “As long as the notice describes the occurrence with sufficient detail to enable the [agency] to investigate, it fulfills the statutory requirement.” Metropolitan Dade County v. Coats, 559 So.2d 71, 72 (Fla. 8d DCA), review denied, 569 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1990). See Magee; Robinson v. City of Miami, 177 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Monchek v. City of Miami Beach, 110 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Because the notice was sufficient to present Otero’s claim to the appropriate agency, Section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and allow the City to investigate, summary judgment on this basis was error.

Accordingly we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 116, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105, 1999 WL 228610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otero-v-city-of-hialeah-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack