Boone v. District of Columbia
| Citation | 294 F. Supp. 1156 |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 290-67. |
| Parties | Arthur BOONE, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
294 F. Supp. 1156
Arthur BOONE, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 290-67.
United States District Court District of Columbia.
September 25, 1968.
Ashcraft & Gerel, Leonard J. Ralston, Jr., William E. O'Neill, Jr., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Charles T. Duncan, Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, John A. Earnest, Matthew J. Mullaney, Jr., Lyman Amstead, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr., District Judge.
This is a review of a decision of the Assistant Pre-Trial Examiner denying the oral motion of counsel to join the cause of action of Florence Boone, wife of Plaintiff Arthur Boone, for loss of consortium, with the cause of action of
An action may not be maintained against the District of Columbia for unliquidated damages to person of sic property unless, within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, the claimant, his agent, or attorney has given notice in writing to the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia of the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of the injury or damage. * *
Thus, the statute requires that the District of Columbia be given written notice of five distinct matters: (1) the identity of the claimant; (2) the approximate time of the injury; (3) the approximate place of the injury; (4) the approximate cause of the injury; and (5) the approximate circumstances of the injury. Notice of all five must be given within six months from the date of the injury or damage.
The statute is in derogation of the common law and thus must be strictly construed. McDonald v. Government of District of Columbia, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 221 F.2d 860 (1955); District of Columbia v. World Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 68 A.2d 222 (D.C.Mun.App. 1949). Where, as here, a statute is clear and unambiguous and "is specific in the details of its requirements as to the maintenance of an action against the Government, the courts are not at liberty to construe the statute other than according to its terms, or to depart from its clear requirements." McDonald v. Government of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 09-0622(GK).
...(D.C.1981). Thus, the "notice is fatally defective if one or more of the statutory elements is lacking," Boone v. District of Columbia, 294 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.D.C.1968), and no right of action accrues. Gwinn, 434 A.2d at 1378; accord Doe by Fein v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 870 ......
-
Knable v. Wilson, s. 75-1655
...District of Columbia v. Green, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 20, 21-22, 223 F.2d 312, 313-314 (1955); with, e. g., Boone v. District of Columbia, 294 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.D.C.1968); Miller v. Spencer, 330 A.2d 250 (D.C.App.1974); Toomey v. District of Columbia, 315 A.2d 565, 567 (D.C.App.1974); Brown v.......
-
Washington v. District of Columbia, 13095.
...Accord, Stone, supra, 99 U.S. App.D.C. at 45-46, 237 F.2d 41-42 (Prettyman, J., dissenting); Boone v. District of Page 1366 Columbia, 294 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.D.C. 1968).10 More specifically, in Pitts, supra, which concerned a claim for wrongful death at a public housing project, we said w......
-
Pitts v. District of Columbia, 12673.
...(1974); District of Columbia v. World Fire & Marine Ins. Co., D.C.Mun.App., 68 A.2d 222, 225 (1949). See Boone v. District of Columbia, 294 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.D.C.1968) (written notice is insufficient due to its failure to state the claimant's identity or the circumstances of the injury)......