Groeschner v. Mobile County

Decision Date29 May 1987
Citation512 So.2d 70
PartiesJoseph R. GROESCHNER v. COUNTY OF MOBILE, et al. 85-1185.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

J.P. Courtney III and Joseph J. Minus, Jr., of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, for appellant.

Mary Beth Mantiply, Mobile, for appellees.

STEAGALL, Justice.

Joseph R. Groeschner was severely and permanently injured in an automobile accident on the Dauphin Island Bridge in Mobile County on March 22, 1985. On October 16, 1985, Groeschner filed a verified statement of claim with the Mobile County Commission, seeking compensation from the county for injuries he sustained in the accident. In the statement of claim, Groeschner contended that the accident occurred when a Mobile County sheriff's deputy, who had stopped a motorist in the southbound emergency lane on the bridge, returned his car to the road. As Groeschner approached in the northbound lane, the deputy drove his vehicle into the southbound lane of traffic. A motorist traveling in the southbound lane swerved into the northbound lane to avoid the deputy's vehicle, and collided head-on with Groeschner.

Groeschner received a response from the county's insurance adjuster on February 3, 1986, stating that the insurance company's investigation into the accident found no negligence on the part of the county and that all claims arising from the accident were denied. On February 6, 1986, Groeschner died in a fire at his residence. Later that same day, a complaint alleging negligence was filed in circuit court against the county, the sheriff's department, and the sheriff's deputy, seeking damages for the injuries Groeschner sustained in the automobile accident. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on June 27, 1986.

The appellant 1 contends that Groeschner's compliance with Code 1975, § 6-5-20, by presenting his claim to the county commission is sufficient to constitute a filing within the meaning of the Alabama survival statute, Code 1975, § 6-5-462, so that Groeschner's claim arising from the automobile accident survives in favor of his personal representative. The appellant, while recognizing that § 6-5-462 does not allow for survival of a tort claim in favor of the personal representative where no action had been filed by the decedent, submits that in this case Groeschner took appropriate action prior to his death to allow survival of his claim.

Groeschner's claim was presented to the county commission pursuant to Code 1975, § 6-5-20. Subsections (a) and (b) of § 6-5-20 provide:

"(a) An action must not be commenced against a county until the claim has been presented to the county commission, disallowed or reduced by the commission and the reduction refused by the claimant.

"(b) The failure or refusal of such a county commission to enter upon its minutes the disallowance or reduction of the claim for 90 days is a disallowance."

Section 6-5-20 prevented Groeschner from filing suit against the county until his claim had been presented to and denied by the county commission. Johnson v. Macon County, 447 So.2d 157 (Ala.1984); Jones v Lee County Commission, 394 So.2d 928 (Ala.1981). The claim was deemed to be disallowed when the county commission failed to disallow the claim for 90 days after the claim was presented. Thus, Groeschner was free to bring suit on his claim any time after January 14, 1986, the date on which his claim was deemed disallowed. Groeschner had clearly presented his claim within the limitations period prescribed by Code 1975, § 11-12-8, which provides that "[a]ll claims against counties must be presented for allowance within 12 months after the time they accrue or become payable or the same are barred...."

Section 11-12-8, which bars claims against the county not presented within 12 months from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Reed v. Ponder Enters., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 31 Mayo 2012
    ...was filed in court. See Callens v. Jefferson County Nursing Home, 769 So. 2d 273, 275-278 (Ala. 2000); Groeschner v. County of Mobile, 512 So. 2d 70 (Ala. 1987). Cf. Maynard v. Pneumatic Prods. Corp., 256 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that timely filing of a charge of discrimina......
  • Jacks v. Madison County
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1999
    ...§ 11-12-8 were summarized by the Alabama Supreme Court in Chumney v. Houston County, 632 So.2d 1328 (Ala.1994): "In Groeschner v. Mobile County, 512 So.2d 70, 72 (Ala.1987), we restated with approval the purpose of § 11-12-8, which is `to prevent and guard against excessive and embarrassing......
  • Ford v. Jefferson County
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 21 Julio 2000
    ...a county pursuant to these statutes is a "condition precedent to the maintenance of a lawsuit against the county." Groeschner v. County of Mobile, 512 So.2d 70, 72 (Ala.1987). We first consider whether these statutes apply to the officers' claim arising under the United States Constitution ......
  • Steadham v. Sanders
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 18 Septiembre 1991
    ...181 So. 281, 282-83 (1938); accord Converse Bridge Co. v. Geneva County, 168 Ala. 432, 53 So. 196 (1910); see also Groeschner v. County of Mobile, 512 So.2d 70, 72 (Ala.1987) (plaintiff "free to bring suit on his claim any time after ... his claim was deemed disallowed" by county Because th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT