 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nyland v. Brock6/27/1996
ances presented here, we agree.
If the purpose of a notice statute is met, the claimant has substantially complied with its requirements. See Powers v. City of Boulder, 54 Colo. 558, 131 P. 395 (1913) (notice of claim against city substantially complied with statute when served on mayor, rather than city clerk, and complaint alleged mayor had notice of accident and plaintiff's injuries). In Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District, supra, 800 P.2d at 68-69, the court stated:
The notice requirements of section 24-10-109 are designed to permit a public entity to conduct a prompt investigation of the claim and thereby remedy a dangerous condition, to make adequate fiscal arrangements to meet any potential liability, and to prepare a defense to the claim. . . .
These interests . . . are not the only public interests implicated by the notice requirements. We believe that permitting injured claimants to seek redress for injuries caused by a public entity also serves a public interest. . . .
In determining whether a claimant has substantially complied with the notice requirement, a court may consider whether and to what extent the public entity has been adversely affected in its ability to defend against the claim by reason of any omission or error in the notice.
Here, the record reveals no inability on the part of RTD to investigate and defend the action brought by plaintiff. In fact, as the trial court found, the record establishes that RTD actively investigated plaintiff's claims. Not only did the claims adjuster seek the help of plaintiff's attorney in its investigation, he requested that the attorney complete RTD accident report forms and provide the legal theory upon which he relied to RTD's risk manager.
Based on the scope of the investigation conducted by the claims adjuster, we agree with the trial court's Conclusion that RTD suffered no prejudice as the result of plaintiff's communications with the claims adjuster instead of with the governing body or its attorney. Further, RTD has not shown that it would have investigated any differently nor made any different fiscal arrangements to meet any potential liability even if plaintiff had given notice to RTD's governing body or its legal counsel. See Woodsmall v. Regional Transportation District, supra (same claims adjuster as here with notice given to RTD and its legal counsel). Moreover, we note that plaintiff did provide notice, albeit approximately nine months after the accident, to both RTD's governing board and its legal counsel.
Under such circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff substantially complied with the notice requirements of ยง 24-10-109(3) within 180 days of the accident.
Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint.
The order is affirmed.
JUDGE DAVIDSON and JUDGE BRIGGS concur.
Disposition
ORDER AFFIRMED
|