Thompson v. County of Los Angeles

SCOTT, J., pro tem. Plaintiff filed her complaint in the superior court on March 2, 1932, claiming damages for personal injuries alleged to have occurred by reason of a defective condition of a portion of highway maintained by defendants. Defendant County of Los Angeles interposed a general demurrer on the ground that plaintiff had not presented a claim to the hoard of supervisors within ninety days after the accident occurred. The demurrer was sus[75]tained without leave to amend, and from judgment for defendants thereupon entered plaintiff appeals.

The accident occurred July 31, 1931, and the only claim plaintiff presented to the board of supervisors was filed with it on December 3, 1931.

The charter of Los Angeles County contains no provision for the filing of claims before suit in a case such as this. Appellant contends, therefore, that she was not required to file a claim with the board of supervisors before bringing suit.

On August 14, 1931, about two weeks after the accident, an amendment to the general laws of this state took effect, being Act 5149, Deering’s General Laws of 1931 (Stats. 1931, p. 2475), which provided in effect that such a claim for damages resulting from a dangerous or defective highway shall be presented to the clerk of the board of supervisors within ninety days after the accident occurred. Plaintiff did not file a claim in this case until more than ninety days had elapsed following the effective date of that act, and an even longer time after the happening of the accident. The provisions of the general law control as to matters on which the charter is silent (Deupree v. Payne, 197 Cal. 529 [241 Pac. 869]; Cline v. Lewis, 175 Cal. 315 [165 Pac. 915]), and this act must be construed and applied in connection with sections 4075 to 4078, inclusive, of the Political Code, which deal with the subject of claims against a county.

Appellant urges that since, the accident occurred July 31, 1931, and the act took effect August 14, 1931, it would result in impairing her right to recover if she were required to file such a claim. She relies on Crim v. San Francisco, 152 Cal. 279 [92 Pac. 640], in which plaintiffs sued to recover for certain damages which had accrued in part before an amendment to the charter of the city and county of San Francisco went into effect requiring the filing of a claim as a condition precedent to bringing such a suit. The court there said: “It is true that if plaintiff have any claim for damages not barred by the statute of limitations which accrued before the charter went into effect, they could not be deprived of such claim because the charter afterwards provided that a demand must be made within six months of the time of the occurrence of the alleged damages.