Bruce v. Jefferson Union High School Dist. of San MateoCounty

• Decision Date: 11 December 1962
• Citation: 26 Cal.Rptr. 762,210 Cal.App.2d 632
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Gerald BRUCE, a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Rodney H. Washburn, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 19877.

Page 762

26 Cal.Rptr. 762

210 Cal.App.2d 632

Gerald BRUCE, a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem, Rodney H. Washburn, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 19877.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Dec. 11, 1962.

Leslie C. Gillen, Rodney H. Washburn, and Richard H. Perry, by Richard H. Perry, San Francisco, for appellant.

Keith C. Sorenson, Dist. Atty. of San Mateo County, Redwood City, Ropers, Majeski & Kane, Redwood City, for respondent.

SALSMAN, Justice.

Gerald Bruce, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, brought this action by his guardian ad litem against the Jefferson Union High School District of San Mateo County, hereafter referred to as the defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries. Under Education Code, section 1007, ¹ in effect at the time plaintiff's cause of action arose, a claim for damages against the defendant was required to be filed within 90 days of injury. Plaintiff did not file such a claim within 90 days, nor did anyone do so on his behalf. In his amended complaint plaintiff sought to plead an estoppel against the defendant, but the trial court sustained a general demurrer to the amended complaint without leave to amend further, and thereupon entered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff's contention on this appeal is that his amended complaint stated facts sufficient to raise the issue of estoppel. We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment.

The amended complaint, here summarized, alleged: That during orientation week students were informed that the school maintained insurance; that any pupil who was injured must immediately report such injury to the school nurse; that failure to report would preclude compensation; that after reporting the school nurse would inform the injured pupil as to what, if anything, the pupil would be required to do; that after appellant's injury he was given emergency treatment by the school nurse and transferred to the hospital; that while at the hospital he was informed by the school nurse that he did not have to worry about anything; that after he returned to classes he reported to the school nurse and asked her about the accident, but that she would not discuss the accident other than to direct him to remain at home for one week; that after his return to classes, the teacher in the class in which he was injured would not talk about the accident, and that because he had complied with the school orientation on accidents, and was given no further instructions by school authorities, he made no further inquiries and assumed that he had done everything required to establish a claim.

The amended complaint adequately informs the defendant of the facts upon which the plaintiff intends to rely, and contains the essential elements of an estoppel. When such is the case, the pleading is sufficient and not subject to general demurrer. (Klein v. Farmer, 85 Cal.App.2d 545, 554, 194 P.2d 106; Burrow v. Carley, 210 Cal. 95, 103, 104, 290 P. 577; 18 Cal.Jur.2d, Estoppel, § 13, p. 412.)

The essential elements of estoppel are false statements or concealments, or conduct amounting thereto, with reference to the transaction made by one who has actual or virtual knowledge of the facts, to another who is ignorant of the truth, with the intention, resulting in consummation, that the other should act on such false statements or concealments, or equivalent conduct. (City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co., 209 Cal. 105, 137, 287 P. 475; 18 Cal.Jur.2d 406; Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. Lefever, 117 Cal.App.2d 489, 256 P.2d 32.) Here the amended complaint discloses the essential elements of estoppel in that it alleges the facts of which defendant had knowledge; the instructions given by defendant to pupils such as plaintiff and which were required to be followed in the event of an accident in order to gain compensation; that plaintiff followed the instructions, was met with silence, and believed he had done everything required of him in order to establish his claim. Under the pleaded facts the defendant was under a duty to speak. When a party is under a duty to speak, and has an opportunity to do so, knowing the circumstances require it, an estoppel may arise from his silence. (People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 196 P.2d 570, 6 A.L.R.2d 1179.)

In Adams v. California...