 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greene v. Utah Transit Authority12/18/2001
P.2d 1201. As outlined above, the legislature has explicitly declared how, what, when, and to whom a party must direct and deliver a Notice in order to preserve his or her right to maintain an action against a governmental entity. Compliance with the statute is the determining issue, not actual notice.
In the absence of some ambiguity, we will not disturb explicit legislative requirements and read into the statute an actual notice exception.
Compliance with the Immunity Act is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a trial court to hear claims against governmental entities. See Thomas v. Lewis, 2001 UT 49, 13, 26 P.3d 217 (citing Rushton, 1999 UT 36 at 18, 977 P.2d 1201). Jurisdictional issues are threshold questions and must be addressed before a trial court can consider other arguments. Id. Thus, failure to comply with the Immunity Act requires a trial court to dismiss a complaint.
B. Ms. Greene's Noncompliance with Immunity Act
Ms. Greene failed to strictly comply with the Immunity Act. She admittedly did not deliver the Notice to the president or secretary of UTA's board. Regardless of the rationale for this failure, or the fact that UTA may have had actual knowledge of her claim, her noncompliance deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear her claim. Even assuming Mr. Pitcher made the statements Ms. Greene alleges he made, his delivery instructions cannot override the requirements set by the legislature. Because Ms. Greene failed to strictly comply with the Immunity Act, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her claim. We are therefore compelled to affirm the trial court's dismissal of this case.
II. UTA'S PROVISION OF CLAIMS INFORMATION
In his deposition, Mr. Pitcher estimated that he is the initial recipient of Notices approximately 40% of the time. He admitted that in such cases he feels no obligation to assist a claimant who erroneously delivers a Notice to him and that such Notices are simply left to sit in a file. While this approach may be in keeping with the letter of the law, we have concerns about UTA's policy.
If, in fact, 40% of notices of injury claims against UTA are misdirected as Mr. Pitcher stated, the legislature may wish to reconsider the liability of individuals or entities who actively contribute to such misdirection. UTA is a governmental entity funded in significant part by taxpayers and exists to serve the public. Any intentionally misleading behavior, even if legal, cannot be a public service. While UTA has no duty to make out a plaintiff's case, if 40% of injured parties who chose to pursue additional legal remedies are stopped by delivery deficiencies of which UTA is clearly aware, and to which it may have contributed, UTA would better serve the public by providing accurate and complete claims filing information. Energy and resources used to defeat claims might be better used to prevent them.
CONCLUSION
As explained above, Utah law requires strict compliance with the explicit instructions outlined in the Immunity Act. Failure to strictly comply with these requirements deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction and precludes a claimant from bringing suit against a governmental entity. Because Ms. Greene did not strictly comply with the delivery requirements of the Immunity Act, we affirm the trial court's order.
Chief Justice Howe, Associate Chief Justice Russon, Justice Durham, and Justice Durrant concur in Justice Wilkins' opinion.
Page 1 2 3 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|