Wilson v. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

Opinion

This case involves the interaction of several related provisions of the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.; all further statutory references are to that code unless otherwise indicated). Roughly paraphrased, section 911.2 requires the filing with the appropriate public agency of a claim for death or injury within 100 days of accrual of a cause of action. Under, section 946.4, subdivision (a), however, a failure

In the matter before us plaintiff failed to file his claim with defendant agency within the 100-day period specified in section 911.2. We must decide whether section 946.4 excuses plaintiff, as a claimant, from compliance with section 911.2 notwithstanding the fact that (1) he untimely filed a claim with the proper agency at its correct address, and (2) he has not alleged that he was deceived or confused by the agency’s noncompliance with section 53051. We will conclude that one of the probable legislative purposes underlying section 946.4 is to assure compliance by public entities with section 53051 thus supplying correct and complete information to the Roster of Public Agencies, We will further conclude that to serve such purpose, section 946.4 should be construed to excuse plaintiff’s noncompliance with section 911.2 under the circumstances in this case.

On August 12, 1972, plaintiff Roy Wilson allegedly sustained severe injuries when he drove his car over the edge of a deep excavation in a San Francisco street. On October 30, 1972, 78 days after the accident, and on the theory that the excavation was improperly maintained and inadequately marked, plaintiff filed a timely claim for damages with the San Francisco City Attorney. One hundred and twenty-nine days after the accident, on December 19, 1972, the city attorney returned the claim to plaintiff with the suggestion that it be filed with defendant redevelopment agency which performed the excavation work, and on the same day plaintiff filed the claim with defendant which (at some undisclosed date) rejected it. Plaintiff filed his complaint against defendant agency on August 7, 1973, and the City of San Francisco was not named as a defendant.

Defendant demurred to the second amended complaint, noting that plaintiff had ultimately filed a claim with defendant at its correct address, and that plaintiff had failed to allege that his delay in presenting his claim was due either to lack of knowledge or confusion on his part as to the agency’s correct address. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and accordingly judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals.

Resolution of the issue before us requires a careful scrutiny of the terms of section 946.4 and discovery of the legislative intent underlying the section. As previously noted, section 946.4 states in part as follows: “(a) Where provision is made by or pursuant to law that no suit may be brought against a public agency as defined in Section 53050 unless and until a claim is presented to the agency, the failure to present a claim does not constitute a bar or defense to the maintenance of a suit against such public agency if, during the 70 days immediately following the accrual of the cause of action: [If] (1) No statement pertaining to the public agency is on file, or is placed on file, in the Roster of Public Agencies in the office of the Secretary of State and of the county clerk of each county in which the public agency then maintains an office, as required by Section 53051; or [U] (2) A statement or amended statement pertaining to the public agency is on file, or is placed on file, in the Roster of Public Agencies in the office of the Secretary of State and of the county clerk of each county in which the public agency then

Section 946.4 was adopted in 1965 to clarify certain ambiguities in a predecessor section, former section 945.5. (See Cal. Law Revision Com. com. to § 946.4, 32 West’s Ann. Gov. Code (1966 ed.) p. 374; Van Alstyne, Cal. Government Tort Liability (Cont.Ed.Bar 1964) pp. 367-368, 774-775; id. (Cont.Ed.Bar Supp. 1969) pp. 93-96, 174-176.) As is apparent from the language of section 946.4, substantial noncompliance by the agency with the requirements of section 53051 unconditionally excuses the claimant from filing a claim. This conclusion is supported by the following language of section 945.4, which concerns the necessity of filing written claims with public agencies, and which recites that, “Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6 [petition for relief from claim-filing requirement], no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented . . . until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity . . . .” (Italics added.) The emphasized reference to sections 946.4 and 946.6 was added to section 945.4 in 1965 for the purpose of directing attention to the “exceptions” to the claim-filing requirement, which exceptions are described in those two sections. (See Cal. Law Revision Com. com. to § 945.4, 32 West’s Ann. Gov. Code, supra, p. 365.)

Thus, we must reject defendant’s suggestion that section 946.4 performs a more limited function, namely, to furnish a ground upon which a claimant might base either a request to the public agency for leave to file a late claim (§ 911.4) or a petition to the court for an order relieving him from the claim-filing requirement (§ 946.6). To the contrary, a fair reading of the sections in question suggests that the agency’s failure to comply with section 53051 entitles the claimant to ignore the claim-filing requirement entirely.

Defendant agency contends, however, that section 946.4 should be inapplicable where, as here, the claimant has actually filed a claim, albeit

Defendant relies heavily upon our decision in Tubbs v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 671 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 433 P.2d 169 ], but that case is not controlling here. In Tubbs, the plain tiff filed a timely claim with the proper public agency, but failed to commence her suit to enforce her claim within six months after the claim was deemed rejected, as required by section 945.6. She argued that since defendant agency had not complied with section 53051, she was excused from filing a claim, and a fortiori, from observing the six months’ statute of limitations. We rejected the argument, noting that “a claimant who has actually presented a claim with the proper public entity may not invoke those sections [945.5, the predecessor to 946.4, and 53051] to excuse compliance with the claims statutes and circumvent the special six-month statute of limitations.” {Tubbs, supra, at p. 676.) We further explained that section 53051 was enacted “to provide a means for identifying public agencies and the names and addresses of designated officers needed to enable or assist a person to comply with any applicable claims procedure” {ibid.) and that sections 53051 and former 945.5 were “manifestly designed to assist persons who had not filed claims” (p. 677). (Accord, Rogers v. Board of Education (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 355 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 905 ].)

In connection with the foregoing, defendant notes, however, that the complaint is silent as to whether plaintiff was in fact misled or confused by defendant’s non compliance. Yet section 946.4 contains no requirement of a showing of actual deception or confusion, and we decline to read such a requirement into the section. As Professor Van Alstyne observes, public agencies should be induced to comply with section 53051; prejudice resulting from incomplete or incorrect roster information should be presumed to exist, so long as the error or omission is- a “substantial” one. (See § 946.4.) Defendant does not contend that the alleged inaccuracies involved herein are insubstantial.

We conclude, accordingly, that plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to constitute a valid excuse for the failure to file a timely claim with defendant agency, and that accordingly the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer and in dismissing the complaint. In view of our disposition of the matter, we need not consider plaintiff’s further contention that his filing of a timely claim with the city attorney constituted substantial compliance with section 911.2, or tolled the running of the 100-day filing period. (See Elias v. County of San Bernardino (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 70 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 621 ].)