From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Natareno v. Martin

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
May 23, 1997
694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997)

Summary

In Natareno v. Martin, 694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997) (mem.), we restated our long-held determination that "the notice requirement of 45-15-9(a) is a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of action,... and may not be waived."

Summary of this case from Morales v. Napolitano

Opinion

No. 97-83-A.

May 23, 1997


ORDER

This matter is here on the plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of her complaint on the grounds that she failed to comply with the notice requirement of G.L. 1956 (1991 Reenactment) § 45-15-9. After consideration of the prebriefing materials, this case was assigned to the full court for a session in conference in accordance with Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In this case a justice of the Superior Court determined that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for personal injuries sustained from a fall on a sidewalk on Lincoln Avenue in the City of Warwick. The trial justice found that plaintiff had not provided timely notice of the claim to the city. This court has held that the notice requirement of § 45-15-9 (a) is a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of action, Marshall v. City of Providence, 633 A.2d 1360, 1361 (R.I. 1993) (mem.), and may not be waived. See Batchelder v. White, 28 R.I. 466, 68 A. 320 (1907)(per curiam).

The plaintiff has asserted that she did not need to comply with the notice requirement set forth in § 45-15-9 because she is not alleging a defect, but rather she is alleging negligence by the city in the maintenance of the sidewalk. She also asserted that she had a cause of action pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 24-5-13. We disagree with the plaintiff's contentions. In Barroso v. Pepin, 106 R.I. 502, 261 A.2d 277 (1970), a similar argument was advanced and rejected. This court stated that § 24-5-13 set out a waiver of governmental immunity and §§ 45-15-8 and 45-15-9 set forth the procedures for bringing an action against a municipality. We find the reasoning set forth in Barroso to be compelling in the instant case.

We have carefully considered the record in this case and the arguments of the appellant, and, for the reasons stated above, we find that the trial justice did not err. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal is denied and dismissed.

Entered as an Order of this Court this 23rd day of May, 1997.

By Order,

________________ Brian B. Burns Clerk Pro Tempore


Summaries of

Natareno v. Martin

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
May 23, 1997
694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997)

In Natareno v. Martin, 694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997) (mem.), we restated our long-held determination that "the notice requirement of 45-15-9(a) is a condition precedent to the plaintiff's right of action,... and may not be waived."

Summary of this case from Morales v. Napolitano
Case details for

Natareno v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:Higenia Natareno v. John K. Martin, in his capacity as Treasurer of the…

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Date published: May 23, 1997

Citations

694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997)

Citing Cases

Moseley v. Fitzgerald

It is clear that the requirements of § 45-15-9 must be strictly obeyed and that the notice requirement is a…

Morales v. Napolitano

]" Connor, slip op. at 2. In Natareno v. Martin, 694 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1997) (mem.), we restated our long-held…