David L. v. County of Riverside

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 1983 No. Civ. 27936Published

Before: Morris

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that for purposes of Government Code section 911.4, the term 'guardian' refers to a person other than a parent, and periods of mental incapacity during which no such guardian is appointed must be excluded from the one-year claim filing period.

Issues

Whether a parent qualifies as a 'guardian' under Government Code section 911.4.
Whether the period of a minor's mental incapacity without a formal guardian tolls the one-year period for filing a late claim against a public entity.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It has recently been held that the word “guardian” within section 911.4, refers to a person other than a parent.”

“[T]he time during which [plaintiff] is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or conservator of his person shall not be counted” in assessing the reasonableness of the period which has elapsed.”

Opinion

MORRIS, P. J.

Facts

Plaintiff was bom on June 20, 1975, at Riverside General Hospital. He seeks to assert a cause of action against Riverside County for the severe mental and physical injuries he allegedly suffered at birth due to the allegedly negligent conduct of Riverside General Hospital employees. Plaintiff made application on June 23, 1981, to present a late claim pursuant to Government Code section 911.4.

His claim was denied on September 10, 1981. Plaintiff then filed an ex parte petition for appointment of his mother as guardian ad litem which was granted on March 10, 1982. On March 10, 1982, plaintiff filed notice of hear

[284]

ing and petition for relief from the claim requirement pursuant to section 946.6.

The trial court denied plaintiffs petition on grounds that he had not complied with the provisions of section 911.4. In so holding, the court found: 1) that plaintiffs parents were his guardians within the meaning of section 911.4, and 2) that an unreasonable amount of time had elapsed prior to plaintiffs bringing suit.

On appeal, plaintiff claims that: 1) the word “guardian” in section 911.4 contemplates a person with more legal authority than a parent, and 2) there was no unreasonable delay in filing the claim within the meaning of the statute. Because we agree with plaintiffs interpretation of the statute, we reverse.

Discussion

Section 911.4 provides: “(a) When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within such time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such claim.

“(b) The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) of this chapter within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. In computing the one-year period under this subdivision, time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss is a minor shall be counted,

David L. v. County of Riverside

AI Brief

MORRIS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief