Stewart v. City of Rio Vista

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1945 No. Civ. 7214Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A claim for damages against a municipality substantially complies with statutory address requirements when the claimant's attorney verifies the claim and provides their own business address, enabling the city to locate or communicate with the claimant.

Issues

Whether the omission of a claimant's address in the body of a claim for damages against a municipality is fatal to the maintenance of an action when the attorney's address is provided in the verification.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion the claim which was filed in this ease is not fatally defective for the mere reason that the address of the claimant is not given in the body of the claim.”

“Since the verification of the claim in this ease contains the name and business address of the attorney of the claimant, where the claimant may readily be located it would appear to be a substantial compliance with the statute in that regard.”

THOMPSON, J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment which was rendered against her pursuant to an order sustaining a demurrer to her complaint without leave to amend the pleading. The suit was for damages for personal injuries received as a result of falling into an open ditch maintained

[280]

by the city within its limits. The demurrer was sustained on the ground that the complaint fails to state a valid cause of action for the reason that it affirmatively appears from an exhibit attached to the complaint that plaintiff failed to file a claim for damages in the form and manner required by the statute relating to demands for damages for personal injuries against municipalities. (Stats. 1931, p. 2475; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1943, Act 5149, p. 1678.) The defect in the claim which was filed in due time is that it fails to “specify the .. ., address of the claimant,” as required by the statute.

A complaint for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff was filed March 29, 1944, against the city of Rio Vista, under the act providing for liability of municipalities • for the maintenance of dangerous and defective streets and grounds. (Stats. 1923, p. 675, 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 5619, p. 2602.) The injuries were alleged to have been received April 9, 1943, by falling into an open ditch which was dug and maintained by the city within its limits. July 8, 1943, a claim for damages was filed in behalf of the plaintiff, by her attorney. It is attached to the complaint as Exhibit A, and made a part thereof. The claim conforms to the requirements of the statute, with the exception that it fails to “specify the . . . address of the claimant,” in the body thereof. The claim was signed by “Elizabeth Stewart, Ray E, Stewart, by Sinclair M. Dobbins, Their Attorney.” It was verified by the attorney. His verification contains this language, “That he is an attorney at law . . . and has his office in Vacaville, Solano County, California, and is the attorney for the Claimant. . .; that claimant is unable to make the verification because she is absent from said County.”

The only question on appeal is whether the omission

in the claim,

to “specify the . . . address of the claimant,” is fatal to the maintenance of the action for damages against the city, in spite of the fact that the attorney stated in his verification of the claim of his client that he “has

Stewart v. City of Rio Vista

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief