Blair v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 30 January 1990 |
Docket Number | No. C007671,C007671 |
Citation | 267 Cal.Rptr. 13,218 Cal.App.3d 221 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Clayton Edward BLAIR, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Shasta County, Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Real Party in Interest. |
Barr, Newlan & Sinclair, John D. Barr, Redding, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Joseph A. Montoya, Chief Counsel, Los Angeles, Ronald I. Harrison, Asst. Chief Counsel, George L. Cory, Brelend C. Gowan, Sacramento, and Kathleen Duggan Calder, Berkeley, for real party in interest.
Petitioner (plaintiff) commenced an action pursuant to the Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, §§ 810 et seq.) to recover damages for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Real party in interest (defendant) Department of Transportation moved to strike portions of plaintiff's first amended complaint on the ground the challenged allegations predicated liability on facts different from those set forth in the claim plaintiff submitted to the State Board of Control. The superior court granted the motion, and plaintiff now asks for extraordinary relief. We shall issue a writ of mandate directing that the trial court vacate its order granting defendant's motion to strike.
Plaintiff, a passenger in a pick-up truck, was injured in an accident which occurred when the driver lost control on State Route 44 in Shasta County on December 22, 1985, and the vehicle left the highway and collided with a tree. Government Code section 945.4 requires the filing of a claim that meets the requirements of section 910 as a prerequisite to an action in tort against a state agency. (Fall River Joint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434, 253 Cal.Rptr. 587.)
When a civil action is brought following denial of a government tort claim "the written claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint; even if the claim were timely, the complaint is vulnerable to a demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim." (Nelson v. State of California (1982) 139 Cal.App.3d 72, 79, 188 Cal.Rptr. 479 [citations omitted]; see also Fall River Joint Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 434, 253 Cal.Rptr. 587; Lopez v. Southern Cal. Permanente Medical Group (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 673, 676-677, 171 Cal.Rptr. 527.) Defendant moved to strike portions of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the first amended complaint, contending that the challenged allegations go beyond the facts described in the claim form. The text of the paragraphs with the challenged portions underscored, reads as follows:
According to defendant, the sole theory of legal cause of the accident asserted in the claim is the state's failure to prevent or remedy the accumulation of ice on the highway. Therefore, defendant argues, the allegations in the complaint relating to the lack of guard rails, slope of the road, and failure to warn must be stricken as matter not asserted in the claim. We disagree. We do not read the claim so narrowly, nor do we think the law requires that the claim contain the degree of specificity defendant would have us enforce.
We begin with the relevant statutes. Government Code section 945.4, as previously noted, simply states that no action may be commenced unless a claim which satisfies section 910 has been submitted and denied. Section 910 prescribes the information that the claim must contain. As pertinent here, the statute requires that the claimant set forth: As long as these general elements are present, it is not necessary that the claim comply with formal pleading standards. (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College District (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1082, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576.) The purpose of the claim is to present sufficient detail "to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit." (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 456 115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701; and see Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1083, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576.)
It is clear that plaintiff's claim meets the minimum requirements of Government Code section 910. It set forth the date, place, and circumstances of the accident. It does more, in response to the questions on the claim form. It is this surplusage which is at the core of the defendant's motion. It seeks to take advantage of the fact the Board of Control form requests more information than the statute requires. The form asks that the claimant state the "particular act or omission on the part of state officers" which is alleged to have caused the injury or damage. Such detail is not required by the Government Code. Indeed, if the claim form had not included Question 4, or if plaintiff had simply left it blank, the information provided in response to the remaining questions would have satisfied the Government Code's demands. While an allegation as to the legal cause of an accident may be an element of the tort which must be pled in a complaint, section 910 does not impose upon an injured claimant an obligation to include it in the claim. Nor does the Board of Control, in its role...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Varo v. L. A. Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office
..."theories of liability set forth in the complaint." Id. at 448, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 176, 99 P.3d at 504 (citing Blair v. Superior Court , 218 Cal. App. 3d 221, 267 Cal.Rptr. 13 (1990) ); see also White v. Superior Court , 225 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1511, 275 Cal.Rptr. 706 (1990). Although the pre-la......
-
Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. CV-F-91-048 OWW.
...demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim.'" Blair v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 223-24, 267 Cal.Rptr. 13 (1990) (citation omitted). Government Code section prescribes the information that the claim must contain. As perti......
-
Koussaya v. City of Stockton
...[Citation.]" ( Stockett , supra , 34 Cal.4th at p. 447, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 176, 99 P.3d 500.)For example, in Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 267 Cal.Rptr. 13 ( Blair ), the plaintiff sued the Department of Transportation to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automob......
-
Dicampli–Mintz v. Cnty. of Santa Clara
...Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Authority, supra, 34 Cal.4th 441, 446, 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 176, 99 P.3d 500, citing Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 225, 267 Cal.Rptr. 13), and “ ‘should not be applied to snare the unwary where its purpose has been satisfied’ ” ( ibid., quoting Elia......