Rousseau v. City of San Carlos

California Court of Appeal Apr 23, 1987 No. No. A030124Published

Before: Low

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court abused its discretion in denying a minor's petition for late claim relief by improperly imputing the negligence of the minor's guardian and attorney to the minor. Because the minor was seriously debilitated and the application was filed within one year of the cause of action's accrual, the delay was not unreasonable.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a minor's petition for late claim relief under Government Code section 946.6.
Whether the negligence of a minor's guardian or attorney can be imputed to the minor to bar a late claim petition.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court improperly considered the dilatory actions of the minor’s guardian and her attorney and should have focused on the minor’s behavior alone.”

“The negligence of the adults she relied upon cannot be imputed to the minor.”

“Government Code section 946.6 “was not enacted to penalize minors or to deprive them of their rights in cases where adults may have slept on their rights—quite to the contrary the statutes are to protect minors.””

Opinion

LOW, P. J. In this case, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the minor’s petition for late claim relief. (Gov. Code, § 946.6.) The court improperly considered the dilatory actions of the minor’s guardian and her attorney and should have focused on the minor’s behavior alone. In light of the minor’s seriously debilitated condition, we conclude that the time it took to file the petition for judicial relief was not unreasonable.

On June 17, 1983, plaintiff, Dawn Rousseau, was injured when a car she was driving collided with another vehicle near the intersection of Cherry Street and State Highway 82 in the City of San Carlos, San Mateo County. Dawn was almost 16 Vi years old at the time of the accident. She suffered brain damage which resulted in speech and motor function defect. She was hospitalized for three months, during two months of which she was unconscious. In October 1983, more than 100 days after the accident, Dawn’s father, Donald, contacted counsel to sue the responsible public entities and counsel agreed to represent plaintiff.

Counsel concluded that a cause of action existed against the City of San Carlos, San Mateo County and the State of California. Based on an engineer’s report, counsel decided to prosecute charging sight-distance defects.

On May 8, 1984, Donald was appointed guardian ad litem. On May 14, 17 and 29, HVi months after the accident and 7 months after the attorney was retained, plaintiff filed applications to file a late tort claim with the state, the county and the city, respectively. (Gov. Code, § 911.4.) The applications were based on the grounds that the delay in filing a timely claim was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect. (Gov. Code, § 911.4.) The applications were denied. On September 20, 1984, plaintiff filed a petition for judicial relief based on the same ground of excusable neglect, which was denied on October 26, 1984. (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) She appeals from this order.

[501]I

On appeal, plaintiff again argues the issue of excusable neglect. But she also contends that she is entitled to relief because (1) she was a minor during the entire 100-day filing period (Gov. Code, § 946.6., subd. (c)(2)); and (2) she was mentally and physically incapacitated during the entire 100-day period (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(3)).

Rousseau v. City of San Carlos

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief