Varoz Ex Rel. Varoz v. Sevey

Utah Supreme Court

Varoz Ex Rel. Varoz v. Sevey

506 P.2d 435, 29 Utah 2d 158, 1973 Utah LEXIS 747

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 7, 1973

Docket12956

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 506 P.2d 435 (Varoz Ex Rel. Varoz v. Sevey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Varoz Ex Rel. Varoz v. Sevey, 506 P.2d 435, 29 Utah 2d 158, 1973 Utah LEXIS 747 (Utah 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

TUCKETT, Justice.

This action was brought by the plaintiff for the wrongful death of his mother. The action as against Salt Lake County was dismissed by the court below for the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the notice requirements of Section 63-30-13, U.C.A.1953.

The plaintiff is the four-year-old son of Mary Patricia Varoz and is her sole surviving heir. Mary Patricia Varoz was riding as a passenger in an automobile being operated by Ronald F. Sevey which was proceeding in a southerly direction on Second West Street in Salt Lake County. At the intersection of 3900 South Street, Second West Street curves to the west at a 90-degree angle. The automobile failed to negotiate the curve, struck a guard rail and overturned. As a result of the accident Mary Patricia Varoz and Ronald Sev-ey, the driver of the automobile, received fatal injuries.

Shortly after the accident deputies of the Salt Lake County sheriff investigated the accident and a report was sent to the Salt Lake County traffic engineer. There was some evidence which would indicate that the warning signs posted at the approach to the sharp curve were inadequate and that the guard rail at the curve was improperly constructed. The plaintiff through his attorney filed a notice of claim with the state of Utah after he had received information which proved to be inaccurate that the street in question was maintained by the State. After the claim was denied by the State on the ground that the street was under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County the plaintiff then filed a notice o-f claim with the county. The [160]*160claim was not filed within 90 days as provided for by Section 63-30-13.

It is the plaintiff’s contention that traffic officers employed by the county having made a comprehensive investigation of the accident in question that the county did in fact have actual notice, and that the failure of the plaintiff to give timely written notice should not bar his claim. From the language of the statute it is quite clear that the legislature intended to make the filing of a timely notice of claim prerequisite to maintaining an action. The pertinent language of Section 63-30-13 is as follows:

A claim against a political subdivision shall be forever barred unless notice thereof is filed within ninety days after the cause of action arises; .

Actual knowledge of the circumstances which resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s mother by officials of the county does not dispense with the necessity of filing a timely claim.

The minority of the plaintiff is insufficient to excuse a failure to comply with the applicable statute.¹ It is especially true in this case where the guardian of the plaintiff was aware of the necessity of filing a claim but due to inadvertence filed his claim with the wrong governmental entity.²

We conclude that the action of the district court in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as against Salt Lake County was not erroneous. The decision of the court below is affirmed. No costs awarded.

HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

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

TUCKETT, Justice.

This action was brought by the plaintiff for the wrongful death of his mother. The action as against Salt Lake County was dismissed by the court below for the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the notice requirements of Section 63-30-13, U.C.A.1953.

The plaintiff is the four-year-old son of Mary Patricia Varoz and is her sole surviving heir. Mary Patricia Varoz was riding as a passenger in an automobile being operated by Ronald F. Sevey which was proceeding in a southerly direction on Second West Street in Salt Lake County. At the intersection of 3900 South Street, Second West Street curves to the west at a 90-degree angle. The automobile failed to negotiate the curve, struck a guard rail and overturned. As a result of the accident Mary Patricia Varoz and Ronald Sev-ey, the driver of the automobile, received fatal injuries.

Shortly after the accident deputies of the Salt Lake County sheriff investigated the accident and a report was sent to the Salt Lake County traffic engineer. There was some evidence which would indicate that the warning signs posted at the approach to the sharp curve were inadequate and that the guard rail at the curve was improperly constructed. The plaintiff through his attorney filed a notice of claim with the state of Utah after he had received information which proved to be inaccurate that the street in question was maintained by the State. After the claim was denied by the State on the ground that the street was under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County the plaintiff then filed a notice o-f claim with the county. The [160]*160claim was not filed within 90 days as provided for by Section 63-30-13.

It is the plaintiff’s contention that traffic officers employed by the county having made a comprehensive investigation of the accident in question that the county did in fact have actual notice, and that the failure of the plaintiff to give timely written notice should not bar his claim. From the language of the statute it is quite clear that the legislature intended to make the filing of a timely notice of claim prerequisite to maintaining an action. The pertinent language of Section 63-30-13 is as follows:

A claim against a political subdivision shall be forever barred unless notice thereof is filed within ninety days after the cause of action arises; .

Actual knowledge of the circumstances which resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s mother by officials of the county does not dispense with the necessity of filing a timely claim.

The minority of the plaintiff is insufficient to excuse a failure to comply with the applicable statute.¹ It is especially true in this case where the guardian of the plaintiff was aware of the necessity of filing a claim but due to inadvertence filed his claim with the wrong governmental entity.²

We conclude that the action of the district court in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as against Salt Lake County was not erroneous. The decision of the court below is affirmed. No costs awarded.

HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 P.2d 435, 29 Utah 2d 158, 1973 Utah LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varoz-ex-rel-varoz-v-sevey-utah-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack