Court Opinion

ID: 9775595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:04:32.200387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:07.113663
License: Public Domain

*274DIES, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion because the authorities cited therein are binding on this court. However, this writer believes the time has arrived when the Supreme Court and/or the Legislature should modify the requirements of notice of claims such as involved here.
If the purpose of such notice — as claimed — is to give a city opportunity to investigate a claim promptly while the facts are fresh, such purpose was fully accomplished here.
A letter dated January, 1972, by Mrs. Bowling to the city manager of Port Arthur, sufficiently set forth the claimed problem. On January 11, 1972, the city manager answered the letter, saying:
“I have your recent letter regarding the damage to your home at 5045 Griffin Court.
“This matter has been referred to the City’s insurance carrier and City Attorney for handling.
“I am sure you will be contacted in the near future regarding your damage.
“Sincerely yours,
/s/ George Dibrell George Dibrell City Manager”
The City of Port Arthur made the following admissions which are part of our record:
“2. That within 60 days from the date of the occurrence in question, which forms the basis of this suit, a representative of the City of Port Arthur, Mr. Leon Holtzclaw, personally inspected the damages resulting to the Plaintiffs’ residence from the sewer pipe having been eaten out.

“5. That between the years 1966 and 1970, 5 to 7 cave-ins occurred in the portion of sewer line that defendant, City of Port Arthur, maintains from the intersection of 32nd Street and Twin City Drive to the point where said sewer line intersects 25th Street.
“6. That defendant, City of Port Arthur, was aware since 1968 of sewer odor problems in the area where plaintiffs reside.”
In spite of full knowledge and presumably an investigation by city’s insurance carrier of the facts surrounding and the basis of appellants’ claim, we are saying in this opinion they cannot have their day in court because the notice was unverified and not sent to the city council. In my judgment this is not right and ought to be changed.