Toop v. Metropolitan Dade County
Opinion
The summary judgment for defendants is reversed. There was a triable issue to be submitted for jury determination as to whether the plaintiff was incapacitated so as to excuse giving notice of tort claim to the county within 60 days as required by ordinance, and, if so, whether the notice was given within a reasonable time after such incapacity ended.1 The trial judge appears to have determined plaintiff did not come within the exception approved in the Alexander case2 because he was not unconscious throughout the notice period. An affidavit of a doctor stated that the plaintiff was incapacitated by serious illness and pain during the period involved.3 There was other evidence indicating the contrary. However, the conflicting evidence on that issue should not have been resolved by the court. See Johnson v. Studstill, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 251; Connolly v. Sebeco, Inc., Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 482; Alexander v. Gordon, Fla.App.1963, 147 So.2d 595.
In fairness to the trial judge, it should be noted that the later case of Alexander v. Gordon, supra, dealing with incapacity as an excuse for failure to give notice, had not been decided when he ruled. In Gordon, the exception was held applicable without continued unconsciousness. See also City of Colorado Springs v. Colburn, 102 Colo. 483, 81 P.2d 397; Forsyth v. City of Oswego, 191 N.Y. 441, 84 N.E. 392; Hillborg v. City of New York, 263 App.Div. 668, 34 N.Y.S.2d 153; Carter v. City of Greensboro, 249 N.C. 328, 106 S.E.2d 564, Burkard v. City of Dell Rapids, 76 S.D. 56, 72 N.W.2d 308.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for triaL
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
151 So. 2d 69 (Toop v. Metropolitan Dade County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.