RONALD FAUST, JAMES BECK, AND JEAN ANN HOLMES, APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF NORTH PORT, APPELLEE
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 trial court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with venue and notice requirements of section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
Appellants filed suit for personal injuries from a motorcycle accident in Charlotte County, Florida, naming the City of North Port and others as defen…
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 Venue Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellants filed suit in Charlotte County, Florida, seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of a motorcycle accident. The accident in issue occurred in North Port, Florida. The trial court judicially noticed that the accident occurred within the geographical limits of Sarasota County. Appellants named the City of North Port (“City”), Sarasota County and three named individuals as defendants. Two of the named individuals were residents of Charlotte County.
The City sought dismissal on the following grounds: (1) appellants’ failure to comply with the venue requirements of section 768.28(1), Florida Statutes (1985); (2) appellants’ failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); and (3) the City was protected by sovereign immunity. The motion for dismissal based on improper venue was granted. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in determining that Charlotte County was not the proper venue and in dismissing appellants’ complaint rather than transferring venue.
A review of the record indicates that appellants did not comply with the venue requirements of section 768.28(1) and the written notice and denial provisions of section 768.28(6)(a). We, therefore, affirm the dismissal without prejudice to appellants’ right to refile their cause of action in compliance with the requirements of section 768.28.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.