GRANT WESLEY HUCKER, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND PARK, FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that the statutory notice requirement for claims against a municipality does not apply to actions against individual employees.
Plaintiff sued a city and its police officers individually for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed the action agai…
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 Statutory Condition Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from an order dismissing an action against two city employees individually because the injured plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint that he performed the statutory condition precedent requiring a written claim to be filed with the municipality pursuant to Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1981). We reverse.
The plaintiff filed his complaint against the City of Oakland Park, Florida, and two of its police officers, individually, for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The municipality moved for the entry of a summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 768.-28(6), Florida Statutes (1981), which requires written notice of a claim to be given to a municipality. The trial court granted the motion because of the injured plaintiff’s noncompliance with the notice requirement.1 Thereafter, the police officers in their individual capacity successfully had the action dismissed against them because of the same noncompliance with Section 768.28(6).
The sole issue on appeal is whether the police officers, in their individual capacity, can raise as a defense the notice requirement of Section 768.28(6). We answer in the negative because that section only requires written notice of a claim to be given to a municipality as a prerequisite to maintaining an action against the municipality and we do not find it applicable to actions against individuals. See District School Board of Lake County v. Talmadge, 381 So. 2d 698 (Fla.1980); Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla.1982); West v. Wainright, 380 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Since the complaint states a cause of action against the officers, individually, it should not have been dismissed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur. . The appellants did not timely appeal this order. Therefore, the City is not a party to the appeal sub judice and we leave the summary judgment undisturbed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mrowczynski v. Vizenthal, 445 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…).' [*1102] Finally, appellant contends that summary judgment should not have been entered in favor of the driver Carollo because he cannot raise the notice requirement of Section 768.28(6) as a defense. She relies on Hucker v. City of Oakland Park, 427 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Unfortunately for appellant, Hucker does not apply here. Section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that an employee of the state or any of its subdivisions shall not be held liable in tort unless the employee acted…
-
Lundgren v. McDANIEL, 814 F.2d 600 (11th Cir. 1987)…m within 6 months after it is filed shall be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section____ This section does not apply to claims against defendant police officers in their individual capacities. Hucker v. City of Oakland Park, 427 So. 2d 244 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1983). All parties litigated the pendent claim against Sheriff McDaniel in his official capacity. Appellants raised as a defense failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 768.28(6), and appellees argue that they hav…
Authorities Cited
- Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1982)
- Dist. Sch. Bd. OF Lake Cnty. v. Talmadge, 381 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1980)
- West v. Louie L. Wainwright, 380 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)