Section 13.68 Notice Requirement

• Library: Tort Law 2016

2. (§13.68) Notice Requirement

As a prerequisite to pursuing a common-law cause of action against a municipality in most slip-and-fall cases, notice must be given to that city within 90 days of the occurrence. The applicable Missouri statutes are:

· § 77.600, RSMo 2000 (third-class cities);

· § 79.480, RSMo 2000 (fourth-class cities);

· § 81.060, RSMo 2000 (special charter cities); and

· § 82.210, RSMo 2000 (cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants).

Although the notice requirement remains valid, the Supreme Court of Missouri, by way of footnote, observed that a persuasive case can be made that the original justification for notice no longer exists. Schumer v. City of Perryville, Mo., 667 S.W.2d 414, 416, n.3 (Mo. banc 1984). But in Williams v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. banc 1990), and Findley v. City of Kansas City, 782 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1990), the Court, in unanimous decisions, upheld the validity of the notice statutes and concluded that they did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection, due process, or access to courts. But see Jones v. City of Kansas City, 15 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. banc 2000) (when the plaintiff pedestrian, struck by one of two colliding cars while walking in grass near an intersection, claimed that the City should have had a "stop" sign rather than a "yield" sign at intersection, the yield sign was not a "defect in the condition of any . . . street" within the meaning of § 82.210, and the plaintiff was not required to give notice to the City within 90 days).

A city that does not fall within one of the four notice statutes cannot create its own notice requirements by charter. In Heater v. Burt, 769 S.W.2d 127 (Mo. banc 1989), the plaintiff wife filed suit to recover damages sustained as a result of falling on a sidewalk in front of the Burt home in Florissant, Missouri. Subsequently, the city filed a motion for summary judgment...