Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District

California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 1940 No. Civ. 11383Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to file a verified claim within the statutory period barred her action, and that public officials cannot waive or be estopped from asserting statutory requirements for filing such claims.

Issues

Whether the statutory requirement to file a verified claim within ninety days of an injury applies to a claim arising shortly before the statute's effective date.
Whether public officials can be estopped from asserting a failure to comply with statutory claim-filing requirements.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the generally accepted rule that a municipality and its officers are without power to waive compliance with the law in such matters.”

“The statute does not authorize a waiver nor does it provide any substitute for a written verified claim.”

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries received while on the premises of the school of which she was a regular student. The defendants’ demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. The appeal raises the single question whether, within the time prescribed, plaintiff filed a verified claim or demand with the officers of the school district.

The injury occurred on May 5, 1937; on January 27, 1938, a verified claim and demand for damages was filed with the school board; on February 15, 1938, the board rejected the claim; on August 18, 1939, the complaint for damages was filed. The demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the demand was not made within the time prescribed.

Plaintiff’s cause of action rests entirely upon section 2.801 of the School Code. No liability of this kind existed at common law. Hence the statute must be construed strictly. It reads in full: “Boards of school trustees, high school boards, junior college boards and boards of education are liable as such in the name of the district for any judgment against the district on account of injury to person or property arising because of the negligence of the district, or its officers or employees; provided, however, that a verified claim

[176]

for damages shall have been presented in writing and filed with the secretary or clerk of the school district within ninety (90) days after such accident has occurred. Such claim shall specify the name and address of the claimant, the date and place of the accident and the extent of the injuries or damages received.” The last portion relating to the presentation of a claim for such injuries was added by amendment which became effective August 27, 1937—about three and one-half months following the injury. It is appellant’s contention that this amendment was not intended to be retroactive, and that the respondents were estopped to raise the bar of the statute.

We do not understand that there is involved here any question of the retroactive effect of the statute, or any question of the intention of the legislature, express or implied. The question of the application of the statute to the particular case is determined by the universal rule that changes in rules of procedure may be applied to pending rights if a reasonable time is given for the commencement of proceedings before the bar of the statute takes effect. The precise question was decided in

Kline v. San Francisco Unified School District

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THE COURT.

AI Brief