City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 100
| Decision Date | 23 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 872 |
| Parties | CITY OF SARASOTA, Petitioner, v. Kate COLBERT, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Worth Dexter, Jr., of Dexter, Conlee, & Bissell, Sarasota, for petitioner.
P. T. Paderewski of Rosin & Paderewski, Sarasota, for respondent.
The matter is before us on a petition for a common law writ of certiorari.
Action was filed by respondent as plaintiff against petitioner as defendant seeking to recover on account of negligence causing an accident at a mobile home park operated and controlled by defendant. Answer was filed denying negligence and setting up contributory negligence of plaintiff.
Plaintiff then propounded to defendant a series of written interrogatories seeking to ascertain, inter alia, whether defendant has caused an investigation to be made of the accident; if so whether defendant's investigators made written reports to defendant; and if so to furnish copies of such reports to plaintiff.
Objections were duly filed, defendant contending primarily that plaintiff was seeking the 'work product' of defendant.
The objections to the above mentioned interrogatories were overruled but the court in its order specifically exempted the defendant from furnishing plaintiff copies of investigator's reports 'which are the work product of Defendant's counsel'.
Having grave doubts as to exact meaning and extent of said order, defendant moved to clarify the same and as a result a clarifying order was entered limiting the work product to items obtained after a written claim notice had been served upon the defendant-city pursuant to the provisions of § 196 of the Charter of the City of Sarasota. 1
Our jurisdiction on common law certiorari is predicated upon prior decisions of the Supreme Court under which we hold that we do have such jurisdiction. 2
The sole question is whether the court erred in limiting the 'work product' 3 disclosure to items obtained only after the notice of claim had been filed; and thus requiring the defendant-city to disclose all such items obtained prior to the filing of such notice of claim.
We know of no reason for drawing such an arbitrary date line in a situation such as this. To do so would be to penalize the diligence of the city in promptly investigating a potential claim even though the notice of claim had not been filed with it. The fact that the charter provision above quoted makes it the duty upon receiving a notice of claim to investigate and lay the matter before the governing authority for action does not deprive the city of its right to investigate prior to formal notice of claim; and upon such investigation to then claim, within the definable area, as part of its work product the items obtained by such prompt investigation.
The purpose of the provision with reference to notifying a municipality is to give it an opportunity to investigate the matter, allow its governing body to determine the question of liability and, if desired or justified, to settle the matter and thus avoid litigation. Olivier v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 71
If sustained, the action of the court below would penalize the diligence of the municipality and allow a plaintiff to take advantage of plaintiff's own delay in filing the claim notice at the last moment with the investigation by the city having taken place in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girten v. Bouvier, 3807
...Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Belcher, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 863; Collier v. McKesson, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 673; City of Sarasota v. Colbert, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 872; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 426; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 11......
-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda
...a specific claim has not been filed, sending documents to a risk management department anticipates litigation); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So.2d 872, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). In Chao, the report of a student's slip and fall in a college hallway did not lose its work product character ev......
-
Federal Exp. Corp. v. Cantway, 4D00-3546.
...a claim is filed. See District Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Cnty. Coll. v. Chao, 739 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). Moreover, a report that is routinely prepared may still be work product. See Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Scott, 481 So.......
-
West American Ins. Co. v. Neva Products, Inc., 86-446
...446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957); but see Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA Since certai......
-
Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
...of such writs," citing American Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Eadie, 120 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), and City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). (23) "Similar" was doing a lot of work: Both American Ladder and Colbert involved review of orders granting discovery, a d......