VERIDDO v. RENAUD (1949)

Plaintiffs, A. Veriddo and Santina Gallo, filed an amended complaint in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by them in an automobile collision, in which complaint they alleged that defendant Renaud, while driving a Plymouth sedan, so negligently and carelessly operated said Plymouth sedan that he ran same into a Ford automobile owned and operated by plaintiff Veriddo and in which plaintiff Gallo was riding as a guest, that both plaintiffs sustained serious injuries and incurred expenses for which damages were prayed. Subsequently, for reasons which do not appear, in an amendment to the amended complaint plaintiffs alleged that Renaud was an employee of the State, that the Plymouth sedan which he was operating belonged to the State, that he was operating same with the permission of the State, and was, at said time, acting within the scope and course of his employment with the State.

To the foregoing complaint Renaud filed a demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action because it failed to allege compliance with section 1981 of the Government Code.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and from the judgment for defendant which followed this appeal was taken.

Section 1981, supra, provides as follows: ‘Whenever it is claimed that any person has been injured or any property damaged as a result of the negligence or carelessness of any public officer or employee occurring during the course of his service or employment * * * alleged to be due to the negligence or carelessness of any officer or employee, within 90 days after the accident has occurred a verified claim for damages shall be presented in writing and filed with the officer or employee and the clerk or secretary of the legislative body of the school district, county, or municipality, as the case may be. In the case of a State officer the claim shall be filed with the officer and the Governor.’ (Italics added.)

Plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege that they or either of them filed a claim with either the officer Renaud, or the Governor, and it is conceded by plaintiffs that they did not do so. They contend that their action is against Renaud alone, as an individual; that the State is not made a party, and therefore the filing of a claim is not a prerequisite to the bringing of this action. They concede that their contentions are contrary to the decision of this court in Huffaker v. Decker, 77 Cal.App.2d 383, 175 P.2d 254, but argue that said decision is unsound, and should be overruled.

We think that the decision in Huffaker v. Decker answers all of the arguments presented by appellants, and are not disposed to overrule same.

The judgment is affirmed.

ADAMS, Presiding Justice.

PEEK and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.