 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moran v. Milwaukee County1/25/2005
ity know the "type of damage alleged to have been suffered by a potential claimant." Markweise v. Peck Foods Corp., 205 Wis. 2d 208, 220, 556 N.W.2d 326, 331 (Ct. App. 1996).
. The Morans point to two documents that they say gave Milwaukee County sufficient notice so that it was not prejudiced: (1) the December 5, 2000 "Combined Report," and (2) the April 1, 2002, formal "notice of injury." (Uppercasing omitted.)
1. The December 5, 2000 "Combined Report."
. As we have seen, the only information material to our analysis given by the December 5, 2000 "Combined Report" was that:
· Mrs. Moran "tripped and caught right foot which jammed knee on";
· Mrs. Moran tripped on an "unmarked" "bolted sign holder sticking out of ground with no sign on it"; and
· Mrs. Moran's "apparent injuries" were "unk[nown]." (Uppercasing omitted.)
Although this revealed the "type of damage," see id., 205 Wis. 2d at 220, 556 N.W.2d at 331, namely, that Mrs. Moran "jammed" her knee, it did not give any indication whether that was a serious or a superficial injury. As we discuss below, this is significant in assessing whether the Morans have proved that Milwaukee County was not prejudiced by their failure to give the requisite 120-day notice.
. Mrs. Moran's April 1, 2002, "notice of injury" asserted that as a result of her tripping on the sign seventeen months earlier she "has suffered an injury to her right knee, which has required surgery, as well as having developed tarsal tunnel syndrome and RSD [Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy] to the right lower extremity." Also, on May 14, 2002, Mrs. Moran filled out a questionnaire given to her by an adjuster for Milwaukee County and wrote that she was working at the airport the day she tripped over the sign holder but was, as of May 14, 2002, "disabled." The December 2000 "Combined Report," however, gave no notice that Mrs. Moran's injuries were or could be that serious. Cf. Olsen, 133 Wis. 2d at 377-378, 395 N.W.2d at 811 (mere knowledge that property was affected by construction was not sufficient for governmental entity to assess claimed damage). Thus, although Milwaukee County took two photographs of the sign holder, the County had no reason or duty to investigate further. Simply put, it is contrary to the protection afforded by Wis. Stat. § 893.80(1) to force a government entity to spend resources and taxpayer money to investigate every injury where the requisite 120-day notice is not given on the mere chance that the injury may turn out to be catastrophic, irrespective of how minor it may seem initially. As of the December 5, 2000, "Combined Report," as far as Milwaukee County knew, Mrs. Moran's tripping-related injury was not serious.
2. The April 1, 2002, "Notice of Injury."
. Mrs. Moran's April 1, 2002, "notice of injury" did, for the first time, alert the County that her claimed injuries were serious. (Uppercasing omitted.) This was fleshed out by Mrs. Moran's May 14, 2002, handwritten questionnaire answers, which asserted that:
· Mrs. Moran was "working at the Hertz car rental inside counter" at the airport that day;
· she tripped in the "late afternoon" while walking in the airport's parking garage "from Hertz car rental ... to the Hertz Gold Booth in the parking garage";
· she did not "completely fall," but " t took a few steps to slow down the momentum" of her tripping;
· she "was in a lot of pain and limp ," and "went to the gold booth got what needed";
· she " ent back to the airport" and "told a couple of the girls what happened"; and
· she "tried to wor
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|