 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moran v. Milwaukee County1/25/2005
ied both purposes of the statute.
. The trial court ruled in favor of the County because the December 5 report was marked "incident" only and not marked "injury." I do not find this factor dispositive. Although it would have been preferable if Patricia had marked both boxes, the substance of the report clearly revealed that she injured her knee during the incident. This was sufficient to provide notice to the County that an injury occurred. The case law does not require strict compliance with the statute, DNR v. City of Waukesha, 184 Wis. 2d 178, 198, 515 N.W.2d 888 (1994); rather, it demands only substantial compliance, see State v. Town of Linn, 205 Wis. 2d 426, 435, 556 N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1996).
. My review demonstrates that the December 5 report constitutes substantial compliance with the notice of injury statute. The report provided the County with the basic circumstances of the incident and indicated that Patricia had hurt her knee as a result of the incident. As a direct result of the report, the County conducted an investigation, took photographs to preserve the evidence, and removed the sign which caused the problem.
. Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the Morans' complaint. I would reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.
|
|