Althia Smith Travis v. Kansas City, Missouri

Summary

The Missouri Supreme Court en banc considered whether a personal-injury notice served under Section 82.210, RSMo 1969, was sufficient when it stated an incorrect injury date by five days. The court overruled Hackenyos v. City of St. Louis and held that notice requirements concerning the content of the notice should be liberally construed, subject to a showing of misleading content or prejudice to the municipality. The judgment sustaining judgment on the pleadings was reversed and the cause remanded.

Holdings

1. A timely notice that contains an incorrect injury date is not automatically insufficient under section 82.210. The notice requirement concerning the contents of the notice should be liberally construed, and substantial conformity with the statute may suffice unless the municipality shows that the error materially impaired its ability to investigate or defend the claim.
2. The sufficiency of notice under section 82.210 is a question for the court, not the jury.
3. Hackenyos v. City of St. Louis is overruled, along with Missouri Court of Appeals decisions that were required to follow it, to the extent those authorities automatically require dismissal for an incorrect injury date in a timely notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a five-day discrepancy between the injury date stated in a timely statutory notice and the actual injury date necessarily defeats the action under section 82.210, RSMo 1969.
2. Whether the sufficiency of notice under section 82.210 is a question for the court or the jury.
3. Whether Hackenyos v. City of St. Louis should continue to require strict compliance with the injury-date portion of the notice statute.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded