The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit against the City of St. Charles, ruling that municipal charter notice requirements remain valid despite claims they conflict with state law.
In *Christopher Zang v. City of St. Charles, Missouri* (Mo. 2023), the court held that section 12.3 of the St. Charles City Charter, which requires written notice within 90 days of an incident, does not create an irreconcilable conflict with state statutes. The decision reinforces the authority of municipal governments to establish procedural requirements for lawsuits filed against them.
The case arose from a June 2019 incident when Christopher Zang fell from his bicycle while crossing an open-grated metal bridge in St. Charles. Zang sustained injuries in the fall and approximately nine months later filed suit against both the City of St. Charles and St. Charles County, alleging negligence and premises liability.
Zang's lawsuit claimed the property was owned or controlled by either the city or county. However, he failed to provide the written notice required by the St. Charles City Charter before filing his complaint. Section 12.3 of the charter mandates that no action shall be maintained against the city for alleged negligence unless written notice is first given to the mayor within 90 days of the occurrence.
The charter provision requires the notice to state "the place, time, character and circumstances of the injury, and that the person so injured will claim damages therefor." Zang provided no such notice within the 90-day period or at any point before filing his lawsuit.
The City of St. Charles responded to Zang's complaint by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that his premises liability claim was barred due to his failure to comply with the charter's notice requirement. The St. Charles County Circuit Court, with Judge Daniel G. Pelikan presiding, sustained the city's motion to dismiss.
On appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, Zang challenged the validity of the charter provision itself. He argued that section 12.3 must be stricken because it conflicts with various state statutes. Zang's legal theory was that the municipal charter notice requirement was preempted by or inconsistent with state law governing personal injury claims.
The Missouri Supreme Court rejected Zang's arguments in its opinion issued Jan. 31, 2023. Writing for the en banc court, the justices found no irreconcilable conflict between Charter section 12.3 and the statutes cited by Zang. The court's analysis focused on whether the municipal notice requirement created a conflict that would render it invalid under state law.
The decision represents an important clarification of the relationship between municipal charter provisions and state statutes in Missouri. Cities and counties across the state commonly include notice requirements in their charters or ordinances as a way to manage potential litigation and encourage early resolution of claims.
These notice provisions serve several purposes for municipal defendants. They provide early warning of potential claims, allowing cities to investigate incidents while evidence is fresh and witness memories are clear. The requirements also encourage prompt communication between injured parties and municipalities, potentially facilitating settlement discussions before litigation costs mount.
For plaintiffs, however, notice requirements can create significant procedural hurdles. Injured parties must navigate often-complex municipal charter provisions while dealing with injuries and medical treatment. Failure to comply with notice requirements can result in dismissal of otherwise valid claims, as occurred in Zang's case.
The Missouri Supreme Court's decision in *Zang* suggests that plaintiffs challenging municipal notice requirements on statutory conflict grounds face an uphill battle. The court's finding of no irreconcilable conflict indicates that municipal charters retain significant authority to establish procedural requirements for litigation.
The ruling affects personal injury practitioners throughout Missouri, who must continue to carefully review municipal charter provisions when filing claims against cities and counties. The decision reinforces the importance of prompt investigation and compliance with local notice requirements in municipal liability cases.
For the City of St. Charles specifically, the decision validates its charter provision and provides precedent for defending future cases where plaintiffs fail to provide proper notice. Other Missouri municipalities with similar charter provisions can point to *Zang* as authority supporting the enforceability of their notice requirements.
The case also highlights the broader tension between municipal self-governance and uniform state procedural rules. While state statutes generally govern civil procedure, the *Zang* decision confirms that municipalities retain authority to impose additional procedural requirements through their charters, at least where no irreconcilable conflict exists.
Moving forward, the decision serves as a reminder to potential plaintiffs and their counsel to carefully review applicable municipal charter provisions before filing suit against cities and counties in Missouri. The 90-day notice period in St. Charles, and similar requirements in other jurisdictions, remain enforceable barriers to municipal liability claims when not properly observed.