 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thianmethakun v. City of Monterey Park11/6/2002
settle a claim.
The City cites Turner v. State of California in support of its position Thianmethakun failed to comply with the Tort Claims Act. In that case, the plaintiff filed a tort claim with the State after he was shot in a parking lot after he attended the California State Fair. His tort claim alleged the State failed to warn him or take adequate precautions against anticipated gang-related violence and the reckless conduct of security officers who fired the shot which hit him. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a cause of action based on inadequate lighting at the fair. The State successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground the claim of inadequate lighting was barred by the plaintiff's failure to include it in his tort claim.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the presence of criminal activity, not inadequate lighting, was the dangerous condition of property and the basis for the allegation of State negligence in the tort claim.
We disagree with the City's assertion Thianmethakun alleged different theories of liability in her tort claim and second amended complaint. The tort claim put the City on notice Thianmethakun was alleging "the painted crosswalk, at the `T' intersection . . . and surroundings roadway environment, constituted a dangerous condition of public property" and the crosswalk "was negligently and dangerously designed, constructed and maintained." We find no allegation in the second amended complaint which falls outside this theory of liability.
The City does not seem to dispute the vast majority of the allegations in the second amended complaint are covered by the tort claim. What the City focuses on is the fact the claim does not specifically mention "faded crosswalk lines" or the "possibility of poor visibility due to multiple lanes" on Garfield Avenue. The "substantial compliance" test, however, does not require the tort claim be a mirror image of the complaint. It only requires the claim disclose enough information to enable the public entity to investigate, evaluate and settle the claim. Thianmethakun alleged in the claim "physical characteristics" of the crosswalk "created hidden hazards" for pedestrians and motorists. She also alleged the painted lines "were negligently and defectively placed in such a way as to create confusion." These and other allegations in the claim set forth above (such as negligent maintenance of the crosswalk), put the City on notice it should investigate the condition and placement of the crosswalk lines, and the effect of the surrounding "roadway environment" on pedestrians crossing Garfield Avenue at this location. Thianmethakun's tort claim clearly satisfies the substantial compliance test.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order of dismissal) is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Appellant is to recover her costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
WOODS, J.
PERLUSS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|