NO. 07-08 -026 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C DE CE MB ER21, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ BILL TUR NB OW , Appel lan t v. CO LLIN GSW OR TH C OU NTY , TEX AS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF CO L L IN GS W OR T H CO UNT Y; TH NO. 695 8; HON. ST UART MESS ER, PRESI DING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Bi ll Turnbow

( Turnbow ) appeal s from an order di smi ss ing hi s l aw sui t. H e had soug ht da mag es ag ain st Col li ng sworth C ounty , Tex as (t he Cou nty ) for inj ur ies su ffered as a result of

a v ehicu lar acciden t. Th e t ri a l court dismisse d the cause due to T urnb ow’ s pur por ted fail ure to compl y

w it h the noti ce prov is ion s o f §89.0041 of the Loc al Gov er nment Code . On app eal, h e con ten ds tha t 1) comp liance wi th th e no tice provisions of th e Civ il T ort Claims Act is suf f icient, 2 ) t h e t ri a l c ourt sho uld no t have dismisse d the law suitN oti c e of a cl ai m m ust be gi v en t o a gov er nm ent al uni t no l at ert han si x m ont hs aft ert he d ay t he 1 in c id e n t g iv in g r is e to th e c la im o c c u r r e d a n d m u s t r e a s o n a b ly d e s c r ib e th e d a m a g e o r in j u r y c la im e d , t h e tim e a n d p l a c e o f th e i n c i d e n t, a n d th e i n c i d e n t. 2 becau se the C ounty ’s pl ea in abatement w as not v er ified , and 3) the tri al cour t er re d i n not fili ng findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law
. W e rev erse the o rd er . Iss ues 1 and 2 -

§89. 0041 In hi s first two iss ues, Turn bow co ntends thathi s s uitsh oul d nothav e been dism issed be cause he gav e no tice to th e Coun ty of his claim pursu antt o the Te x as T ort Cl aims Act
. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . §101.10 1( a) ( Ver non 200 5)
. F urther more, 1 that prov is ion al leg edl y

su perceded t h e re q u i re ments of §89.0041 of the Loc al Gov er nment Cod e i n thi s p arti cul ar

m atter
. W e di sag re e w it h the reason ing under ly ing hi s c ontent ion s but s ust ain the ult imat e c oncl usi on th at t he tr ial co urt er re d i n di smi ss ing the matter
. Sect ion 89 .00 41 sta tes: (a ) A person fili ng su itag ain st a c ounty or ag ain st a c ounty

off ic ial i n the off ic ial ’s ca paci ty

as a c ounty

off ic ial sh all del iv er

w ri tten noti ce to: (1 ) the c ounty

j udg e; an d (2 ) the c ounty

or di str ict attor ney

hav ing j ur is dicti on to defend the county i n a c iv il su it
. (b ) The w ri tten noti ce must be del iv ered by ce rt ified or

reg is tered mai l by the 3 0 bus ine ss day

after su iti s fil ed and cont ain : th (1 ) the s ty le and c ause number of the s uit ; (2 ) the c our

t i n w hic h the su itw as filed ; (3 ) the d ate o n w hic h the su itw as filed ; and (4 ) the n ame of the p erson fili ng su it
. T EX . L OC . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . §89 .00 41(a ) & (b ) (V e rn o n 20 08). T he legislature a lso mandated that the sui t be dis mis sed if the noti ce is not g iv en as req uired. Id. §89 .00 41(c). Fi nal ly , t he s tatut e has b een hel d to appl y to all ty pes of sui ts ag ain st a c ounty , ex cept3

cer tai n of those founded on c ontract
. W ood v . Walke r, 279 S.W .3d 705, 712 ( Tex . Ap p.– Am arillo 2007 , no pe t.). Here, Tur nbow ’s su itarose from inj ur ies he re cei v ed w hen his v ehi cl e c oll ide d w it h one dr iv en by

a Col li ng sworth County empl oy ee. The par

ti es do notdi sput e tha t not ic e of h is cl a im wa s gi ve n t h e Co u n ty p e r t h e T o rt Cl a im s A c t
. T h is n o t ic e , a c c o rd in g t o T u rn b o w, w as en ough de spite th e dicta tes of §89
. 0 0 4 1 of

the Lo cal Governme nt Cod e. T here is some author ity

for t hat p ro posi ti on. E.g. , Dal las C ounty v. C outee, 233 S.W .3d 542, 547 (Tex
. App.–D all as 2007, pet. deni ed)
. So too is there cont ra ry author ity . E.g ., How lett v. Tar ra nt C ounty, N o. 2 -0 7 -3 7 3 -CV, 2009 Tex . Ap p. L EX I S 9281 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth Dec ember

3, 2009, no pet .)
. W e deem t he l atter auth orit y to be a more ac curate in t e rp re t a t io n o f

t h e la w. As ex pla ine d i n Howlett , the noti ce re q uired pursuant to the Tort Cl aims Act is presui t not ic e. Id. at * 11. Its pur pose is to ensure tha t c lai ms are promptl y repor ted s o the g ov er nmental enti ty

may i nv est ig ate t hei r meri ts and poss ibl y re sol v e the m. Id. at * 11- 12; Br azor ia Cou nty

v. C olq uitt, 282 S.W .3d 582, 586- 87 (Tex
. App.–H oust on [14 Di st. ] 200 9, th pet. filed ). H ow ev er , t he not ic e req uired b y §89. 0041 i s p ost -s uit ; t hat i s, the s tatut e re q uires that itbe a fforded onc e s uiti s fil ed. Ho wle tt v . T a r r a n t C o u n t y , 2 0 0 9 T ex . Ap p. L EX I S 9281 at * 12. It ser v es to en abl e the co unty to re spond ti mely

to the a cti on and prepare a d efense. Id.; Dal las C ounty v. C osk ey, 247 S.W .3d 753, 757 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2008, pet. deni ed)
. It als o ai ds in the mana g ement a nd c ontrol of the c ounty ’s financ es and property
. Bal

les ter os v. Nue ces

C ounty , 286 S. W .3d 5 66, 5 72 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr isti 2 0 0 9, pe t. str ic ken)
. Gi v en th e di ffer ing pur poses under ly ing §101. 101( a) of the4

Civ il Practice and Reme dies Code a nd §89 .00 41 o f the Lo cal Governme nt Cod e, as well as the d iffe rin g t ime frames ex press ed i n eac h, t he two are not in pari m ate ria
. So, the former does not dis pla ce the l atter w hen t or

t c lai ms are al leg ed ag ain st a c ounty
. Nev erthel ess , and for

the same reas ons menti oned i n Howlett and Bal les ter os , we conc lud e that Turnbow subs tanti all y compl ied w it h §89.004 1. Se e H owlett v . T ar ra nt Cou nty, 2 0 0 9 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 9281 at * 15 ( hol din g thatsu bst anti all y co mply ing w it h the ter ms of the sta tute w as suffici ent) ; Bal les ter os v. Nue ces

C ounty, 286 S.W .3d a t 571 -7 2 (holdin g the sam e so long as the Coun ty had actua l know ledge of the suit). As previously me ntion ed, notice of

his claim w as served on the Count y before suit w as f iled. T here af ter, his or ig ina l peti ti on w as re cei v ed by the dist ric t cler k a nd fil e- mark ed F ebr uar y 4, 2005. Fur th e rm o re , t he doc ument na med C oll ing sworth C ounty as defendant and t he c ounty judge, Joh n Jam es, as the p arty upo n w hom se rv ice could be ha d. T hatit filed an an sw er, Col li ng sworth C ounty

undoub tedl y h a d a ct ual kn ow led g e of the sui t. F urther more, the cer ti ficat e of ser

v ic e s hows t hat its answ er w as sent

to Turnbow ’s co unsel on F ebr uar y 23, 2005. Si nce there are onl y 19 d ay s b etw een t he day the peti ti on w as ini ti all y fil ed and the date on w hi c h t h e C o u n ty m a i l e d i t s a n s w e r , w e c a n n o tb u th o l d t h a tt h e C o u n ty had received notice of

the pro ce e ding w ithin th e 30 -day period specif ied in §8 9.0 041 (b). Finally , the petitio n a n d c itation serv ed wi th it cont aine d the informa tion sp ecif ied in §89.004 1( b)
. T h a t is , t hey di sc los ed th e name o f the par ty w ho fil ed s uit , t he s ty le and caus e number of

the sui t, the i denti ty

of the c our

t i n w hic h i t was ini ti ated, and the d ate t he proceed ing w as filed
.5

That the leg is lat ure did not spec ify any par ti cul ar means of af

fordi ng noti ce under §89.004 1 i s a ls o of impor t. This frees us to loo k a t t he to tal ity of the c ircums tanc e s t o deter mine w hether th e pur poses under ly ing the sta tute w ere s ati sfied. F ro m the ci rc umstan ces at bar , one ca n reason abl y deduc e tha t Col li ng sworth C ounty had act ual not ice and knowl edge of the suit w ithin thirty busin ess days of the da te on w hich th e suit w as com me nced . It also had ade quate o ppo rtunity to timely file an answer. So, w e, like the c our ts in Howlett

and Bal les ter os , hol d tha t Tur nbow

su bst anti all y

co mpli ed w it h and thereby per formed the o bli g ati ons impos ed th ro ug h §89. 0041. H av ing so hel d, we need notadd ress the rem aining issues on app eal. Beca use th e trial court erred in dismissing the suit for the groun ds state d in its order, that order

i s rev ersed. F urther more, the caus e i s remanded t o the tr ial co urt.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice