HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07211992 - 1.22 CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,.CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOAR_ D ACTIO
-ft
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements. ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT July 2 1, 1992
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of
California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors
(Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code
Amount: $500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: ALVAREZ, Pookie
ATTORNEY: Elliott Friedman
Law Offices Date received
ADDRESS: 6431 Fairmount Ave. , Suite 9 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON June 25, 1992
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: June 24, 1992
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
ppi�ll gATCVELDR, Clerk
DATED: June 29, 1992 BY: Depu y
1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of rv'Su rs
(� ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. .The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: / 29112- BY: l _X-1 J Deputy County Counsel
-T
II1. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administ4 for (2)
{ ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
(V) This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for
this date.
Dated: .7 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, B . Deputy Clerk
(WARNING (Gov. code c 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you Rave only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or
deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult
an attorney, you should do so immediately.
FOR AnD1TIONAL WARNING SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the
United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to
the claimant as shown above.
Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
RECEIVED
GOVERMENT CODE CLAIM*
LAN 2 51992
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVI
TO: Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA Co.
OUR CLIENT & CLAIMANT: Pookie Alvarez
c/o LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
El Cerrito, CA 94530
DATE OF INJURY: January 18, 1992
PLACE OF INJURY: North Richmond, CA.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT: Client watched Contra Costa County
Sheriff's officers beat the father of her children and spray
mace into the face of her infant child. She was then
falsely arrested.
NATURE OF DAMAGES: Severe emotional distress.
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500,000.00
ATTORNEYS TO WHOM NOTICES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED:
Elliott Friedman, Esq.
Law +Offices of Elliott Friedman
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 528-1616
DATED: June 16, 1992
Elliott Friedman
Attorney for Claimant
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. I am
a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing
occurred. My address is:
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9, -E1 Cerrito,. CA 94530
I served the foregoing Government Code Claim by enclosing a
true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person
whose name and address is given below, and depositing the
envelope in the United States mail with the postage thereon
fully prepaid ion the date and place as shown below.
Clerk of the Board of supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration is executed on
June 16, 1992,, at El Cerrito, CA.
ABy: adaline Fluhr
LAW OFFICES OF
ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN
ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN 6431 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE, SUITE 9 P.O. BOX 337
MARTIN FRIEDMAN HOMER, ALASKA 99603
EL CER RIT O, CALIFORNIA 94530
(907) 235-8085
FAX (510) 528-0655 TELEPHONE (510) 528-1616
RECEIVED
JUN 2 5 XV
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVIS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
June 22, 1992
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Government Code Claims
To Whom it May Concern:
Enclosed please find an original and one copy of three
Government Code Claims pertaining to an incident that
occurred on January 18, 1992 involving County of Contra
Costa sheriff's officers. Please file the originals and
return stamped received copies to this office in the
enclosed return envelope.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN
EF/mf
enclosures
v�
0
4
%D
IPA
to �
ONv�cn .
td
?a �
00 V
� U tll
CA
� O
O
otp
ti
lJ � 0
RECE1V
�. Im,0
CLAIM JUN 2 9 1992
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
COUNIY COUMa
MMTiNEZ 0464
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT July 21, 1992
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of
California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors
(Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code
Amount: Undetermined Section 913 and 915.4. please note all 'Warnings".
CLAIMANT: HARTMAN, Timothy Paul
ATTORNEY: Thomas P. Greerty
Attorney at Law Date received
ADDRESS: 535 Main Street, Ste. 306 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON June 25, 1992 (hand delivered)
Martinez, CA 94553
BY MAIL POSTMARKED:
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
DATED: June 24, 1992 PIL deputy OR, Clerk
FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supe isors
Thisclaim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8):
( ) Claim is not timely filed'.' The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( )
Other:
Dated: BYi� Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the-Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Ad 'nisi ator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
1V. BOARD 0 ER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( ) This Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is. a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for
this date.
Dated: '�—a 1—9 2 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �,�_._ Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or
deposited in the wail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult
an attorney, you should do so immediately.
FOR ADDTTTONAL WARNING SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned. have been a citizen of the
United States, over age 18; and that today 1 deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez.
California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to
the claimant as shown above.
Dated:_ -'��— r-Je2 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
-7
1 THOMAS P. GREERTY (State Bar No. 085616]
2 Attorney at Law
535 Main St., Suite 306
3 Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 370-8400 RECEIVED
4
5 Attorney for Claimant JUN 2 51992
TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN q:l;Sa, M
6 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO. 11
7
8
9 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10
11
12 RE: Claim by ) NO.
13 TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN )
CLAIM AGAINST A PUBLIC
14 ) ENTITY
Against the COUNTY OF ) [Government Code §§905 &910]
15 CONTRA COSTA )
16 )
17
18 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA:
19
20 Claimant, TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN, hereby makes a claim against the County
21 of Contra Costa for comparative equitable indemnity in a sum which is currently unknown
22 to claimant. The following statements are made in support of the claim:
23 l.) The address of Claimant, Timothy Paul Hartman, is 1150 Virginia Lane,
24 Concord, CA 94520; (510) 682-4691.
25 2.) Notices concerning the claim should be sent to:
26
Thomas P. Greerty, Esq., Attorney at Law
27 535 Main Street, Suite 306
28 Martinez, CA 94553 (510) 370-8400.
Hartman Claim to Contra Costa County-page 1 .
1 3.) The occurrence giving rise to this claim occurred on January 27, 1991, at the
2 intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, City of Pleasant Hill, County of
3 Contra Costa, California.
4 4.) On January 27, 1992, TERRY LEE SPITZER, KATHLEEN MONTHEI
5 SPITZER, JEFFREY SPITZER, and JUSTIN SPITZER, a minor, by and through his
6 guardian ad litem, Kathleen Monthei Spitzer, commenced an action in the Superior Court of
7 California, County of Contra Costa, No. C92-00308, naming TIMOTHY PAUL
8 HARTMAN, CITY OF PLEASANT HILL, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GIRO
9 SPORT DESIGN, INC., OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP, SHIMANO AMERICAN
10 CORPORATION, and others, as defendants. A true and correct copy of said complaint is
11 attached hereto as EXHIBIT "A".
12 Said complaint generally alleges that plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was making a
13 left turn, on a bicycle, from eastbound Taylor Boulevard to northbound Pleasant Hill Road
14 when he was struck by an automobile owned and operated by defendant TIMOTHY PAUL
15 HARTMAN. Plaintiffs allege that the intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill
16 Road was in such a condition so as to cause a substantial risk of injury when used with due
17 care and in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. Plaintiffs
18 specifically allege the following defects, hazards and deficiencies with respect to said
19 intersection:
20 (a) The incline on Taylor Boulevard as a vehicle heads westbound and
21 approaches the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road obscures the visibility
22 of the signal lights;
23 (b) The circuitry and timing of the signal lights on the respective four
24 corners of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, at the involved
25 intersection, and the overhanging signal lights were improperly
26 maintained, designed, and timed; furthermore, the timing intervals
27 between signals was inadequate and inappropriate;
28 (c) There was a lack of appropriate and/or any proper signing and/or
Hartman Claim to Contra Costa County-page 2 .
1 warning placards;
2 (d) At all times prior to the collision, the intersection and its lighting and
3 signaling violated defendants' own construction and design standards
4 and warrants, as well as the "as built" plans which indicated the
5 appropriate precautionary measures to be taken to prevent intersection
6 collisions; and
7 (e) There were no measures taken to warn the public of the dangerous and
8 deceptive condition of the roadways or of the intersection as alleged
9 hereinabove, nor did the defendants take any precautions to prevent or
10 avoid collisions such as that alleged hereinabove.
11 Plaintiffs further allege that the condition of said intersection constituted a trap and
12 that the alleged dangerous condition of the intersection was a proximate cause of the resulting
13 accident and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs.
14 Should a court or jury determine that the County of Contra Costa and claimant are in
15 some manner legally responsible for the accident and/or damages sustained by plaintiffs,
16 which responsibility claimant denies, or if claimant settled with plaintiffs, claimant would be
17 entitled to a determination of the County of Contra Costa's proportionate share of the legal
18 responsibility for the damages sustained by plaintiffs and comparative equitable indemnity in
19 an amount sufficient to assure that claimant pays or paid no greater percentage of the
20 judgment and/or settlement in favor of plaintiffs than claimant's proportionate legal
21 responsibility for the damages sustained by plaintiffs.
22 5.) Plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER claims to have sustained serious and
23 permanent personal injuries as a result of the subject accident and to have incurred special
24 and general damages in excess of $25,000. Plaintiffs JEFFREY SPITZER and JUSTIN
25 SPITZER are alleged to be the sons of plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER and claim to have
26 been percipient witnesses to the subject accident and to have sustained severe emotional
27 distress as a result. Plaintiff KATHLEEN MONTHEI SPITZER is alleged to be the wife of
28 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER and is claiming damages based upon loss of consortium.
Hartman Claim to Contra Costa County-page 3 .
1 6.) This claim is for comparative equitable indemnification and is in an amount
2 that would place it within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
3
4
5 DATED: June 24, 1992.
6
7
8
NOMAS P. ERT ,
9 Attorney at law,
10 On behalf of claimant
TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hartman Claim to Contra Costa County-page 4 .
1 Declaration of Service By Personal Deliver
2 I, Norbert A. Schueller, the below undersigned, do hereby declare:
3 1.) I am a citizen of the United States, a resident of the City of Martinez, over the
4 age of 18 years', and NOT a party to the within-entitled matter.
5 2.) On June ZS , 1992, 1 served the within CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC
6 ENTITY, by personally delivering the original thereof to:
7 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Room 106
8 651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553.
9
i0 I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct of my own knowledge, and that this declaration is/was executed
11 on this the 2S re+ day of June 1992 at Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of
California.
12
13
14
15 Norbert A. Schueller, declarant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hartman Claim to Contra Costa County-page 5 .
1 RICHARD C. BENNETT 1 ' r----
State Bar No. 60561
2 PATRICIA EGGLESTON 1 JAN 2 7199? ! r
State Bar No. 118637
3 BENNETT & JOHNSON
1901 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1650
f 4 OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 444-5020 "Y
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
SU':*i^4S ISSUED
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
11
C.92� 0030 $
12 -
TERRY LEE SPITZER, KATHLEEN ) No.
13 MONTHEI SPITZER, JEFFREY SPITZER, )
and JUSTIN SPITZER, a minor, by )
14 and through his Guardian ad } COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Litem, KATHLEEN MONTHEI SPITZER, )
15 )
Plaintiffs, ).
16 )
VS. )
17 )
TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN, CITY OF )
18 PLEASANT HILL, COUNTY OF )
CONTRA COSTA, GIRO SPORTS DESIGN,
19 a California Corporation, )'. 0 E Uj 4 L �Gt;Jc;�s + yup"
OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP, SHIMANO
20 AMERICAN CORPORATION, a )
California Corporation, and }
21 DOES 1-100, inclusive, )
)
22 Defendants. )
)
23
24 Plaintiffs allege:
25 FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
26 1. Defendant TIMOTHY PAUL HARTMAN ("Hartman") is a
NEW� ,r � u P,AGF OF 3- C
1 i
1 resident of Contra Costa County, California.
2 2. At all relevant times Defendant CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
3 ("Pleasant Hill") was, and is, a municipal corporation organized
4 and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
5 California.
6 3. A claim for the damages alleged herein was submitted
7 to Pleasant .Hill on July 24, 1991, and was rejected in full on
8 October 22, 1992.
9 4. At all relevant times, defendant COUNTY OF CONTRA
10 COSTA was, and now is, a political subdivision of the State, of
11 California.
r
12 5. . A claim for damages was submitted to the County _
13 pursuant to Government Code Section 845 on July 24, 1991, and
14 was rejected in full on August 13, 1991.
15 6. At all relevant times defendant GIRO SPORTS DESIGN
16 ("Giro") was, and now is, a corporation duly organized and
17 existing under the laws of the State of California,. with its
18 principal place .of business in Soquel, Santa Cruz County,
19 California.
20 7. At all relevant times, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP ("Octopus")
21 was, and now is a business organization, form unknown, existing
22 under the laws of the State of California.
23 8. At all relevant times, defendant SHIMANO AMERICAN
24 CORPORATION ("Shimano") was, and now is, a corporation duly
25 organized and existing under the laws of the State of
26 California.
2
PAGE
�t
1 9. Plaintiff JUSTIN SPITZER is a minor of the age of 16
2 years.
3 10. For the purpose of this action, KATHLEEN MONTHEI
4 SPITZER, was appointed by the above-entitled court, and is now
5 the guardian ad litem of plaintiff JUSTIN SPITZER, a minor.
6 11. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and
7 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100,
8 inclusive., and .therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious
9 names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their
10 true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are
11 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the
12 fictitiously named defendants is in some manner responsible for
13 the occurrences ,alleged herein, and that plaintiffs' injuries as
14 alleged herein were proximately caused by that conduct.
15 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
16 that at all times relevant each of the defendants was the agent
17 and employee of each of the other remaining defendants, and in
18 doing the things alleged herein, was acting within the course
19 and scope of such agency and employment.
20, 13. At all times relevant herein, the defendants, and each
21 of them, were members of, and engaged in, a joint venture and
22 common enterprise, and at all times relevant herein, were acting
23 within the course and scope and in pursuance of said joint
24 venture and common enterprise.
25 14. At all times relevant herein, the acts and omissions
26 of the various defendants, and each of them, concurred and
3
A ., PAGE 3OF '..36.
4
f 1 contributed to the acts and omissions of each and all of the
2 other defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages
3 to plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged.
4 15. At all times relevant herein, the defendants, and each
5 of them, ratified, authorized, directed and participated in each
6 and every act or omission complained of herein.
7 16. On January 27, 1991, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
8 riding his bicycle with his two sons, plaintiffs JEFFREY SPITZER
9 and JUSTIN SPITZER in an easterly direction on. Taylor Boulevard
10 in Pleasant Hill, California. Upon reaching the intersection of
11 Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, which intersection was
12 controlled by traffic signals, he stopped at the traffic light
13 regulating left (northerly) turns onto Pleasant Hill Boulevard,
14 intending to turn left. When the light turned green, TERRY LEE
15 SPITZER proceeded through the intersection, where his bicycle
16 was struck by 1971 Chevrolet Camaro, California license number
17 722 DXM ("the car") .
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Negligence)
20 As and for a First Cause of Action, Plaintiff TERRY LEE
21 SPITZER complains against HARTMAN and DOES 1 through 30,
22 inclusive, and each of them, and alleges as follows:
23 17. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1-
24 16 as though fully set forth herein.
25 18. Defendants HARTMAN and Does 1-15 were the owners of
26 the car.
4
PAGE TOF3 "�
1 19. Defendants HARTMAN and Does 16-30 were the drivers of
2 the car.
3 20. Defendants HARTMAN and Does 1-30 negligently
4 entrusted, owned, maintained, controlled, operated and drove the
5 car so as to cause the car to collide with plaintiff and
6 plaintiff's bicycle, and to proximately cause the injuries and
7 damages described herein.
8 21. As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of
9 defendants, and each of them, alleged herein, plaintiff was hurt
10 and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining
11 injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries
12 have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff. great mental, _
13 physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a result -of such
.14 injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damages according to
15 proof-.
t6 22. As a further proximate result of the acts and
17 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged,
18 plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
19 related expenses in an amount according to proof.
20 23. As a further proximate result of the acts and
21 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein,
22 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has been unable 'to attend to his
23 usual occupation since January 27, 1991. Plaintiff is informed
24 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that he will be unable to
25 attend to his usual occupation for some time in the future. As
26 a result thereof, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has suffered, and
5
NEW ,� PAGE s OF 3 v
1 will continue to suffer, lost wages in an amount according to
2 proof.-
3 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as set forth below.
4 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
. 5 (Public Entity Liability)
6 As and for a' Second Cause of Action, Plaintiff TERRY LEE .
7 SPITZER complains against COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and CITY OF
8 PLEASANT HILL and alleges as follows:
9 . 24. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1-
10 23 as though fully set forth herein.
11 25. Those portions of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill
12 Road and the intersection thereof where the collision alleged in
13 paragraph 16 occurred are, and at all relevant times were,
14 awned, designed, constructed, maintained and controlled by
15 defendants the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and the CITY OF PLEASANT
16 HILL, and constituted a dangerous and hazardous condition of
17 public property, which condition existed at the time of the
18 collision and for a sufficient period prior thereto so that the
19 condition was known, or in the exercise of ordinary care should
20 have been known, to the defendants to have created a substantial
21 risk of harm including the type of collision alleged herein.
22 26. Specifically, ,that intersection of Taylor Boulevard
23 and Pleasant Hill Road at or near the scene of the collision
24 included the following defects, hazards, and deficiencies:
25 (a) The incline on Taylor Boulevard as a vehicle heads
26 westbound and approaches the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road
6
�EMO' A ." PAGE
° O t1S? .,e.....CSF 3.V
1 obscures the visibility of the signal lights;
2 (b) The circuitry and timing of the signal lights on the
3 respective four corners of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill
4 Road at the involved intersection and the overhanging signal
5 lights were improperly maintained, designed, and timed;
6 furthermore, the timing intervals between signals was inadequate
7 and inappropriate;
8 (c) There was a lack of appropriate and/or any proper
9 signing and/or warning placards;
10 (d) At all times prior to the collision, the intersection
11 and its lighting and signalling violated defendants' own
12 construction and design standards and warrants, as well as the
13 "as-built" plans which indicated the appropriate precautionary
14 measures to be taken to prevent intersection collisions; and
15 (e) There were no measures taken to warn the public of the
16 dangerous and deceptive condition of the roadways or of the
17 intersection as alleged herein, nor did the defendants take any
18 precautions to prevent or avoid collisions such as that alleged
19 herein.
20 27. All of the above set forth conditions amounted to and
21 crated a "trap" for the unwary motorists and their passengers
22 travelling on both Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road at or
23 near the intersection, and were a proximate cause of the
24 injuries alleged herein.
25 28. As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of
26 defendants, and each of them, alleged herein, plaintiff was hurt
7
11U ,•pq
�„�. GE.AAs...OF ,
1 and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining.
2 injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries
3 have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental,
4 physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a result of such
5 injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damages according to
6 proof.
7 29. As a further proximate result of the acts and
8 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged,
9 plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
10 related expenses in an amount according to proof.
11 30. As a further proximate result of the acts and
12 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein?
13 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has been unable to attend to his
14 usual occupation since January 27, 1991. Plaintiff- is informed
15 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that he will be unable to
16 attend to his usual occupation for some time in the future. As
17 a result thereof, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has suffered, and
18 will continue to suffer, lost wages in an amount according to
19 proof.
20 WHEREFORE plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Negligence - Products Liability)
23 As and for a Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff TERRY LEE
24 SPITZER complains against Defendants GIRO SPORTS DESIGN, OCTOPUS
25 BICYCLE SHOP and DOES 31 to 60, inclusive, and each of them, and
26 alleges as follows:
8
n w '
MOMUV � PAGE OF
a
1 31. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-30,
2 as though fully set forth herein.
3 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis
4 alleges that Defendant GIRO SPORTS DESIGN was at all relevant
5 times herein, engaged in the business of designing,
6 manufacturing, testing, distributing, fabricating, packaging,
7 assembling, constructing, analyzing, recommending, marketing,
8 inspecting, certifying, advertising, promoting, merchandising,
9 warning about selling, leasing, renting, making available and
10 supplying that certain product known as a HELMET (herein the
11 SUBJECT HELMET) .
12 33. Defendants Does 31-45 are, and at all relevant times
13 were, engaged in the business of designing, fabricating,
14 manufacturing, and assembling certain component parts and.
15 supplying them to GIRO, and as part of their business defendants
16 designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, "and supplied to
17 GIRO the component parts for the SUBJECT HELMET.
18 . 34. Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60 are and at
19 all relevant times were, engaged in the business of selling at
20 retail to members of the general public at their principal place
21 of business in the County of Contra Costa, California, bicycle
22 helmets, including the SUBJECT HELMET.
.23 35. At all times relevant herein, defendant GIRO knew, or,
24 in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care, should have
25 known that the SUBJECT HELMET and its component parts was a
26 product of such nature that, if it and its component parts were
9
nn
1tAliJU�0Q U ,I „PAGE 6
1 not properly manufactured, tested, designed, assembled,
2 fabricated, distributed, maintained, recommended,. inspected,
3 certified, warned about, marketed, advertised, promoted, sold
4 and supplied for the purpose of which it was intended, it was
5 likely to severely injure persons by whom it was used. . .
6 Furthermore, defendants, and each of them., new, or should have
7 known that the SUBJECT HELMET and its component parts would be
8 used by members of the general public without inspection for
9 unsafe and dangerous defects.
10 36. At all relevant times herein, defendants and each of
11 them knew or should have known that plaintiff lacked the
12 requisite skill, knowledge, experience and expertise to operate,
13 maintain, service, repair, modify, inspect, test and certify the
14 SUBJECT HELMET.
15 37. At all relevant times herein, defendants knew or
16 should have known that plaintiff would rely on their superior
17 skill and expertise in determining the safe and nondefective
18 condition of the SUBJECT HELMET.
19 38. On or about January 27, 1991, plaintiff TERRY LEE
20 SPITZER was lawfully and properly using the SUBJECT HELMET for
21 that purpose for which it was manufactured, tested, designed,
22 inspected, assembled, constructed, promoted, marketed,
23 advertised, sold and supplied.
24 39. At all times relevant herein, the dangerous, defective
25 and hazardous conditions of the SUBJECT HELMET and its component
26 parts was unsafe for its intended use.
10
rI �
" PAGE PAGE Q
1 40.. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have
2, known, that the SUBJECT HELMET and its component parts were
3 unsafe and defective and presented a dangerous and.hazardous
4 condition to anyone who used, operated or maintained said
5 HELMET.
6 41. Plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER neither knew, nor could
7 have reasonably known, of the dangerous and defective condition
8 of the SUBJECT HELMET.
9 . 42. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
10 them, so negligently and carelessly designed, manufactured,
11 assembled, constructed, analyzed, corrected, tested, inspected,
12 certified, recommended, marketed, advertised, merchandised, _
13 distributed, promoted, owned, operated, controlled, maintained,
14 repaired, serviced, modified, changed, sold, leased, rented,
15 supplied, instructed in the operation of; and entrusted the
16 SUBJECT HELMET to plaintiffs herein that as a direct and
17 proximate result thereof, the SUBJECT HELMET failed to
18 adequately protect plaintiff in the accident with HARTMAN on
19 January 27, 1991 thereby resulting in injury and damage to
20 plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
21 43. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
22 them, further negligently and carelessly failed to alert, notify
23 and warn of the risks and dangers involved in the use of the
24 SUBJECT HELMET, including, but not limited to its defective and
25 unsafe parts and of the degree of skill and experience required
26 to operate, inspect, test and use the SUBJECT HELMET so that as
11
U PAGE .L 0F
1 a' direct and proximate result thereof, the SUBJECT HELMET failed
2 causing injury and damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. .
3 44. At all relevant times herein, defendants and each of
4 them, further negligently failed to alert, notify and warn of
5 the degree of skill and experience required to inspect, make
6 safe, repair, service, modify and test the SUBJECT HELMET and
7 that as a direct and proximate result thereof, the SUBJECT
J
8 HELMET failed causing injury and damage to plaintiff as
9 hereinafter alleged.
10 45. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
11 them, further negligently failed to inspect, test and certify
12 the,, SUBJECT HELMET and make it safe and free from dangerous -
13 defects so that as a direct and proximate result thereof, the
14 SUBJECT HELMET failed causing injury and damage to plaintiff as
15 hereinafter alleged.-
16 46. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
17 conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured in his
18 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
19 shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and became
20 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
2f and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
22 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
23 to be proven at time of trial.
24 47. As a further direct and proximate result of the
25 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
26 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and
12
_.. PAGE OF . (�
1 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
2 medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such
3 expenses are unknown to plaintiff at this time, and he prays
4 leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount
5 thereof when it is finally determined.
6 48. As a further direct and proximate result of the
7 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
8 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and will be so
9 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
10 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
11 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when
12 it is finally determined. -
13 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
14 and each of them as set forth below.
15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 (Strict Liability - Products Liability)
17 As and for a Fourth and separate cause of action, plaintiff
18 TERRY LEE SPITZER against defendants GIRO CORPORATION, OCTOPUS
19 BICYCLE SHOP and DOES 32-60, inclusive, and each of them,
20 alleges as follows:
21 49. Plaintiff reaileges and incorporates by reference each
22 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 48 as though fully
23 set forth herein.
24 50. . Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis
25 alleges that defendant ,GIRO, SPORTS DESIGN was at all relevant
26 times herein, engaged in the business of designing,
13
PAGE OF.J.6 e
1 manufacturing, testing, distributing, fabricating, packaging,
2 assembling, constructing, analyzing, recommending, marketing,
3 inspecting, certifying, advertising, promoting, merchandising,
- 4 warning about, selling, leasing, renting, making available and
5 supplying the product herein referred to as the SUBJECT HELMET.
6 51. Defendants Does 31-45 are, and at all relevant times
7 were, engaged in the business of designing, fabricating,
8 manufacturing, and assembling certain component parts and
9 supplying them to GIRO, and as part of their business defendants
10 designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, and supplied to
11 GIRO the component parts for the SUBJECT HELMET.
12 52.' Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60 are and at
13 all relevant times were, engaged in the business of selling at
14 retail to members of the general public at their principal place
15 of business in the County of Contra Costa, California, bicycle
16 helmets, including the SUBJECT HELMET.
17 53. At all times relevant hereto, defendants GIRO
18 CORPORATION should have known, that the SUBJECT HELMET and its
19 component parts, was a product of. such nature that, if it and
20 its component parts were not properly manufactured, . tested,
21 analyzed, designed, assembled, fabricated, distributed,
22 maintained, serviced, recommended, inspected, certified, warned
23 about, marketed, advertised, promoted, sold, leased, made
24 available, and supplied for which purpose it was intended, it
25 was likely to injure or kill persons by whom it was used.
26 Furthermore, defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have
14
MEU ll ....-.._..PAGE OF
1,. known, that the SUBJECT HELMET and the component parts thereof,
2 would be used by members of the general public without
3 inspection for defects.
4 54. on or about January 27, 1991, plaintiff TERRY LEE
5 SPITZER was lawfully and properly using the SUBJECT HELMET for
A that purpose for which it was manufactured, tested, designed,
7 inspected, assembled, constructed, promoted, marketed,
8 advertised, sold, leased, and supplied.
9 55. on or about January 27, 1991, the SUBJECT HELMET was
10 dangerous, defective and unfit for its intended us in that the
11 SUBJECT HELMET failed due to improper design, manufacture,
12 testing, servicing and maintenance of the HELMET and its -
13 component parts causing plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER to suffer
14 severe head injuries in the accident with HARTMAN alleged
15 herein, thus directly and proximately causing plaintiff TERRY
16 LEE SPITZER to suffer injury and damages as herein alleged.
17 55. At all times relevant hereto, the dangerous, defective
18 and hazardous condition of the SUBJECT HELMET and its component
19 parts was unsafe for its intended use. Defendants, and each of
20 them, knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care,
21 should have known, of such dangerous, defective and hazardous
22 condition of the SUBJECT HELMET and its component parts.
23 57. As a direct and proximate result of the facts alleged
24 above, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER suffered greater injuries in
25 the accident with HARTMAN that he otherwise would have suffered,
26 and severe and permanent injuries and damages as described
15
„ PAGE �Z OF
1 herein, for which defendants GIRO CORPORATION, OCTOPUS BIKE
2 SHOP, and DOES 31-60, inclusive, and each of them, are strictly
3 liable to plaintiff.
4 58. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
5_ conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured in his
6 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
7 shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and became
8 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
9 and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
10 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
11 to be proven at time of trial.
12 59. As a- further direct and proximate result of the
13 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
14 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and
15 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
16 medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of .such
17 expenses are unknown to plaintiff at this time, and he prays
1s leave to amend this pleading to set forth .the exact amount
19 thereof when it is finally determined.
20 60. As a further direct and proximate result of the
21 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
22 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and will be so
23 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
24 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
25 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when
26 it is finally determined.
16
1
PAGE.Q..OF.�
. 1 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
2 and each of them as set forth below. .
3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Breach of Implied Warranty)
5 As a for a Seventh Cause of Action, plaintiff TERRY LEE
6 SPITZER complains against GIRO SPORTS DESIGN, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP
7 and DOES 46-60 and 76-90, and each of them, and alleges as
8 follows:
9 61. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference each
10 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 60 as though fully
11set forth herein.
12 62. GIRO manufactured the bicycle helmets for purposes of
13 their eventual sale to retail buyers.
14 63. Defendants DOES 76 through 90, inclusive, acquired
15' these goods from GIRO and distributed them to defendants OCTOPUS
16 BIKE SHOP and DOES 46 through 60, inclusive, for eventual retail
17 sale to consumers. In the process, defendant distributors
18 supplied to OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP a sample or model of the goods for
19 demonstration at retail, thereby making an express warranty that
20 the whole of the goods conformed thereto.
21 64. Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60,
22 inclusive, ("seller") , sold the SUBJECT HELMET to plaintiff
23 TERRY LEE SPITZER at retail, and plaintiff bought the SUBJECT
24 HELMET from seller. The contract between the parties was oral.
25 . 65. The retail sale to plaintiff was accompanied
26 separately, individually, by the defendant manufacturer's,
17
MWEU'000-.�. PAGE........4F ` 6
k
1 defendant distributors' and defendant seller's implied
2 warranties that the goods were merchantable.
3 66. Defendants, and each of them, breached the implied
4 warranty of merchantability in that plaintiff did not receive
5 suitable goods, and such goods were not merchantable in that the
6 SUBJECT HELMET failed to protect plaintiff from serious head
7 injury when he was involved in the accident alleged herein.
8 '67. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
9 conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured. in his
10 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
11 shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and became
12 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
13 and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
14 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
15 to be proven at time of trial.
16 68. As a further direct and proximate result of the
17 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
18 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and
19 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
20 medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such
21 expenses are unknown to plaintiff at this time, and he prays
22 leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount
23 thereof when it is finally determined.
24 69. As a further direct and proximate result of the
25 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
26 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and will be so
18
PAGE.�,� OF �
1 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
2 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
3 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when
4 it is finally determined.
5 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
6 and each of them as set forth below.
7 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Breach of Express Warranty)
9 As and for a Sixth Cause ,of Action, plaintiff TERRY LEE
10 SPITZER complains against GIRO SPORTS DESIGN, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP,
11 and DOES 31 through 85, and each of them, and alleges as
12 follows:
13 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
14 through 69 as though fully set forth herein.
15 71. GIRO, through advertising to the general public and to
16 the trade, expressly warranted that the SUBJECT HELMET was safe
17 for normal use, was the top-of-the-line product, and would offer
18 superior protection in the event of an accident.
19 72 . OCTOPUS expressly adopted these express warranties by
20 showing the advertisements to its customers. OCTOPUS further
21 expressly warranted that the SUBJECT HELMET was safe for
22 ordinary use and would offer superior protection to a rider in
23 the event of an accident.
24 73. Plaintiff received the above-stated express warranties
25 by reading the advertisements directed to the general public, by
26 being shown and reading the advertisements to the trade, and by
19
OEM- PAGE O
' 1 asking for and receiving the advice of OCTOPUS in the purchase
2 of -the SUBJECT HELMET..
3 74. In purchasing the SUBJECT HELMET, plaintiff relied on
4 the above-described express warranties.
5 75. Defendants, and each of them, breached these express
6 warranties, in that the SUBJECT HELMET failed to adequately
7 protect plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER in the above-described
8 collision with HARTMAN.
9 76. As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of
10 defendants, and each of them, alleged herein, plaintiffs were
11 hurt and injured in their health, strength and activity,
12 sustaining injury to their nervous systems and persons, all of
13 which injuries have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiffs
14 great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a
15 result of such injuries, plaintiffs have suffered general
16 damages according to proof.
17 77. As a further proximate result of the acts and
18 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged,
19 plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
20 related expenses in an amount according to proof,.
21 78. As a further proximate result of the acts and
22 omissions of defendants., and each of them, as alleged herein,
23 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has been unable to attend to his
24 usual occupation since January 27, 1991. Plaintiff is informed
25 and .believes, and thereupon alleges, that he will be unable to
26 attend to his usual occupation for some in the future. As
20
IliN#1 ° U� PAGE... 0 4F.�..6
1 a result thereof, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has suffered, and
2 will continue to suffer, lost wages in an amount according to
3 proof.
4 WHEREFORE plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Negligence - Products Liability)
7 As and for a Seventh Cause of Action, plaintiff TERRY LEE
8 SPITZER complains against defendants SHIMANO AMERICAN
9 CORPORATION, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46 through 75,.
10 inclusive, and each of them, and alleges as follows:
11 79. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
12 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 78 as though fully
13 set forth herein.
14 80. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis
.15 alleges that defendant SHIMANO was at all relevant times herein,
16 engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, testing,
17 distributing, fabricating, packaging, assembling, constructing,
18 analyzing, recommending, marketing, inspecting, certifying,
19 advertising, promoting, merchandising, warning, about selling,
20 leasing, renting, making available and supplying these certain
21 products known as bicycle shoes and bicycle pedals (herein the
22 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS) .
23 81. Defendants Does 31-45 are, and at all relevant times
24 were, engaged in the business of designing, fabricating,
25 manufacturing, and assembling certain component parts and
26 supplying them to SHIMANO, and as part of their business
21
LStJUWll ° llU � „ NPAGE?� OF
3�
1 defendants designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, and
2 supplied to GIRO the component parts for the SUBJECT SHOES AND
3 PEDALS.
4 . 82. Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60 are and at
5 all relevant times were, engaged in the business of selling at
6 retail to members of the general public at their principal place
7 of business in the County of Contra Costa, California, bicycle
8 shoes and pedals, including the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS.
g 83. At all times relevant herein, defendants and each of
10 them, knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care,
11 should have known that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and their
12 component parts were products of such nature that, if they and
13 their component parts were not properly manufactured, tested,
14 designed, assembled, fabricated, distributed, maintained,
15 recommended, inspected, certified, warned about, marketed,
16 advertised, promoted, sold and supplied for the purpose for
t7 which they were intended, they were likely to severely injure
18 persons by whom they were used. Furthermore, defendants, and
19 each of them, knew, or should have known, that the SUBJECT SHOES-
20 AND PEDALS and their component parts would be used by members of
21 the general public without inspection for unsafe and dangerous
22 defects.
23 84. At all relevant times herein, defendants and each of
24 them knew or should have known that plaintiff. lacked the
25 requisite skill, knowledge, experience and expertise to operate,
26 maintain, service, repair, modify, inspect, test and certify the
22
„
",PAGE OF�.
1 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS.
2 85. At all relevant times herein, defendants knew or
3 should have known that plaintiff would rely on their superior
4 skill and expertise in determining the safe and nondefective
5 condition of the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS.
6 86. On or about January 27, 1991, plaintiff TERRY LEE
7 SPITZER was lawfully and properly using the SUBJECT SHOES AND
8 PEDALS for that purpose for which it was manufactured, tested,
9 designed, inspected, assembled, constructed, promoted, marketed,
10 advertised, sold and supplied.
11 87. At all times relevant herein, the dangerous, defective
12 and hazardous condition of the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and
13 their. component parts was unsafe for its intended use.
14 88. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have
15 known, that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and their component
16 parts were unsafe and defective and presented a dangerous and
17 hazardous condition to anyone who used, operated or maintained
18 them.
19 89. Plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER neither knew, nor could
20 reasonably have known, of the dangerous and defective condition
21 of the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS.
22 90. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
23 them, so negligently and carelessly designed, manufacture,d
24 assembled, constructed, analyzed, corrected, tested, inspected,
25 certified, recommended, marketed, advertised, merchandised,
26 distributed, promoted, owned, operated, controlled, maintained,
23
PAGE OF '36
. 1 repaired, serviced, modified, changed, sold, leased, rented,
2 supplied, instructed in the operation of, and entrusted the
3 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS to plaintiff herein that as a direct
4 and proximate result thereof, the shoes became caught in the
5 pedals, thereby preventing plaintiff from getting out of the
6 path of defendant HARTMAN's vehicle on January 27, 1991, thereby
7 resulting in injury and damage to plaintiff as hereinafter
8 alleged.
9 91. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
10 them, further negligently and carelessly failed to alert, notify
11 and warn of the risks and dangers involved in the operation of
12 the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS, including, but not limited to its
13 defective and unsafe parts and of the degree of skill and
14 experience required to operate, inspect, test and use the
15 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS so that as a direct and proximate
16 result thereof, the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS .failed causing
17 injury and damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
18 92. At all relevant times herein, defendants and each of
19 them, further negligently failed to alert, notify and warn of
20 the degree of skill and experience required to inspect, make
21 safe, repair, service, modify and test the SUBJECT SHOES AND
.22 PEDALS and that as a direct and proximate result thereof, the
23 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS failed causing injury. and damage to
24 plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
25 93. At all relevant times herein, defendants, and each of
26 them, further negligently failed to inspect, test and certify
24
A_"PAGE 2 OF 6
1 the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and make it safe and free from
2 dangerous defects so that as a direct and proximate result
3 thereof, the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS failed causing injury and
4 damage to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged.
5 94. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
6 conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured in his
7 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
8 shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and became
9 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
10 and. continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
11 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
12 to .be proven at time of trial:
13 95. As a further direct and proximate result of the
14 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
15 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine; treat and
16 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
17 medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such.
18 expenses are unknown to plaintiff at this time, and he prays
19 leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount
20 thereof when it is finally determined.
21 96. As a further direct and proximate result of the
22 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE• SPITZER was
23 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and.will be so
24 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
25 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
26 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when
25
a A " 2S 36
,..,,,....�_PAGE.�....OF...�,.,.
1 it is finally determined.
2 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
3 and each of them as set forth below.
4 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Strict Liability - Products Liability)
6 As and for an Eighth and separate cause of action,
7 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER complains against defendants
8 SHIMANO, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46 through 75., inclusive,
9 and .each of them, alleges as follows:
10 97. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
11 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 96 as though fully
12 set forth herein.
13 98. Plaintiff- is informed and believes and on that basis
14 alleges that defendants SHIMANO CORPORATION was at all relevant
15 times herein, engaged in the business of designing,
16 manufacturing, testing, distributing, fabricating, packaging,
17 assembling, constructing, analyzing, recommending, marketing,
18 inspecting, certifying, advertising, promoting, merchandising,
19 warning, about selling, leasing, renting, making available and
20 supplying these certain products known as bicycle shoes and
21 bicycle pedals (herein the .SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS) .
22 99. Defendants Does 61-75 are, and at all relevant times
23 were, engaged in the business of designing, fabricating,
24 manufacturing, and assembling certain component parts and
25 supplying them to SHIMANO, and as part of their business
26 defendants designed, fabricated, manufactured, assembled, and
26
a
��U
oult."Awn " PAGE 2 F V, 6
1 supplied to GIRO the component parts for the SUBJECT SHOES AND
2 PEDALS.
3 100. Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60 are and at
4 all relevant times were, engaged in the business of selling at
5 retail to members of the general public at their principal place
6 of business in the County of Contra Costa, California, bicycle
7 shoes .and pedals, including the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS.
8 101. At all times relevant herein, defendants and each of
9 them, knew, or, in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care,
10 should have known that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and their
r
11 component parts were products of such nature that, if it and its
12 component parts were not properly manufactured, tested, -
1.3 analyzed, designed, assembled, fabricated, distributed,
14 maintained, serviced, recommended, inspected, certified, warned
15 about, marketed, -advertised, promoted, sold, leased, made
16 available, and supplied. for which purpose it was intended, it
17 was likely to injure or kill persons by whom it was used.
18 Furthermore, defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have
19 known, the subject SHOES AND PEDALS and the component. parts
20 thereof, would be used by members of the general public without
21 inspection for defects.
22 102. On or about January 27, 1991 plaintiff TERRY LEE
23 SPITZER was lawfully and properly using the SUBJECT SHOES and
24 PEDALS for that purpose for which it was manufactured, tested,
25 designed, inspected, assembled, constructed,promoted, marketed,.
26 advertised, sold, leased and supplied.
27
PAGE "�OF ?,
�r
1 103. On or about June 1, 1988, the SUBJECT .SHOES AND PEDALS
2 were dangerous, defective and unfit for their intended use in
3 that a rider wearing the shoes could not quickly remove his feet
4 from the pedals due to improper, design, manufacture, testing,
5 servicing and maintenance of the SUBJECT SHOES. AND PEDALS and
6 their component parts causing plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER to be
7 unable to remove himself from the path of HARTMAN's car, thus
8 directly and proximately causing plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER to
9 suffer injury and damages as herein alleged.
10 104. At all times relevant hereto, the dangerous, . defective
11 and hazardous condition of the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and
12 their component parts was unsafe for their intended use. _
13 Defendants, and each of them know, or, in the exercise of
14 ordinary and reasonable care, should have known, of such
15 dangerous, defective and hazardous conditions. Plaintiff TERRY
16 LEE SPITZER neither knew, nor could reasonably have known, of.
17 the dangerous, defective and hazardous condition of the SUBJECT
18 SHOES AND PEDALS and their component parts.
19 105. As a direct and proximate result of the facts alleged
20 above, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was by reason of. the defects
21 in the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS and their component parts,
22 suffered severe and permanent injuries and damages as described
23 herein for which defendants and each of them, are strictly
24 liable to plaintiff.
25 106. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
26 conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured in his
28
LSLAIWQ ° ��
PA
_ GE_..OF
1 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
2 shock and injury to his nervohs system and person, and became
3 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
4 and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
5 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
6 to be proven at time of trial.
7 107. As a further direct and proximate result of the
8 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
9 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and
10 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
11 medical and incidental expenses. The exact amount of such
12 expenses are unknown to plaintiff a this time, and he prays
13 leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount
14 thereof when it is finally determined.
15 108. As a further direct and proximate result of the
16 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
17 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and will be so
18 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
19 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
20 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when ,
21 itis finally determined.
22 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
23 and each of them as set forth below.
24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 (Breach of Implied Warranty)
26 As a for a Ninth Cause of Action, plaintiff TERRY LEE
29
t:
21MOnD
° U U PAGE...�. OF 3
1 SPITZER complains against SHIMANO, OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES
2 46-60 AND 91-100, and each of them, and alleges as follows:
3 109. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference each
4 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 108 as though fully
5 set forth herein.
6 110. SHIMANO manufactured the bicycle shoes and pedals
7 for purposes of their eventual sale to retail buyers.
8 111. Defendants DOES 91 through 100, inclusive, acquired
9 these goods from SHIMANO and distributed them to defendants
10 OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46 through 60, inclusive, for
11 eventual retail sale to consumers. In the process, defendant
12 distributors supplied to OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP a sample or model_of
13 the goods for demonstration at retail, thereby making an express
14 warranty that the whole of the goods conformed thereto.
15 112. Defendants OCTOPUS BIKE SHOP and DOES 46-60,
16 inclusive, ("seller") , sold the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS to
17 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER at retail, and plaintiff bought the
18 SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS from seller. The contract between the
19 parties was oral.
20 113. The retail sale to plaintiff was accompanied
21 separately, individually, by the defendant manufacturer's,
22 defendant distributors' and defendant seller's implied
23 warranties that the goods were merchantable.
. 24 114. Defendants, and each of them, breached both the
25 implied warranty of merchantability in that plaintiff did not
26 receive suitable goods, and such goods were not merchantable or
30
30
36
15LAlWIS ° U� PAGE OF
1 fit for the particular purpose for which they were required, in
2 that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS failed to protect plaintiff
3 from serious injury when he was involved in the accident alleged
4 herein.
5 115. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
6 conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was hurt and injured in his
7 health, strength and activity, sustaining injury to his body and
8 shock and injury to his nervous system and person, and became
9 sick, sore, lame and disabled, all of which injuries have caused
10 and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and
11 nervous pain and suffering, all to his general damage in a sum
12 to be proven at time of trial.
13 116. As a further direct and proximate result of the
14 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was required
15 to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and
16 care for him. Plaintiff did incur and continues to incur
17 medical and incidental expenses. the exact amount of such
18 expenses are unknown to plaintiff at this time, and he prays
.19 leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount
20 thereof when it is finally determined.
21 117. As a further direct. and proximate result of the
22 aforementioned conduct, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER was
23 prevented from engaging in his usual occupation and will be so
24 prevented in the future, all to his general damage in an amount
25 unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff prays leave to
26 amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when
31
MUZInno ° gV
„ PAGE `31 OF 36
u- -
1 it is finally determined.
2 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
3 and each of them as set forth below.
4 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Breach of Express Warranty)
6 As and for a Tenth Cause of Action, plaintiff TERRY LEE
7 SPITZER complains against SHIMANO AMERICAN CORPORATION, OCTOPUS
8 BIKE SHOP, and DOES 46 through 60 and 91-100, and each, of them,
9 and alleges as follows:
10 118. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
11 through 117 as though fully set forth herein.
12 119. SHIMANO, through advertising to the general public and
13 to the trade, expressly warranted that. the SUBJECT SHOES AND
14 PEDALS were safe for normal use, were the top-of-the-line
15 product, and would allow a rider of SPITZER's experience to
16 quickly "kick out" in the event of an accident.
17 120. OCTOPUS expressly adopted these express warranties by
18 showing the advertisements to its customers. OCTOPUS further
19 expressly warranted that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS were safe
20 for ordinary use and would allow a rider of SPITZER's experience
21 to quickly "kick out" in the event of an accident.
22 121. Plaintiff received the above-stated express warranties
23 by reading the advertisements directed to the general public, by
24 being shown and reading the advertisements to. the trade, and by
25 asking for and receiving the advice of OCTOPUS in the purchase
26 of the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS. '
32
PAGE
EEO- 3-� OF4......._.
1 122. In purchasing the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS, plaintiff
2 . relied on the above-described express warranties.
3 123. Defendants, and each of them, breached these express
4. warranties, in that the SUBJECT SHOES AND PEDALS failed to
5 adequately allow plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER to quickly "kick
6 out" in the above-described collision with HARTMAN.
7 124. As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of
8 defendants, and each of them, alleged herein, plaintiff was hurt
9 and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining
10 injury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries
11 have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental,
12 physical, and nervous pain and suffering. As a result of such
13 injuries, plaintiff has suffered general damages according to
14 proof.
15 125. As a further proximate result of the acts and
16 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as herein alleged,
17 plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
18 related expenses in an amount according to proof.
19 126. As a further proximate result of the acts and
20 omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein,
21 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has been unable to attend to his
22 usual occupation since January 27, 1991. Plaintiff is informed
23 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that .he will be unable to
24 attend to his usual occupation for some time in the future. As
25 a result thereof, plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER has suffered, and
26 will continue to suffer, lost wages in an amount according to
33
U� I..�"PAGE 3 3 OF Z 6O
1 proof.
2 WHEREFORE plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
3 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
5 . As and for an Eleventh Cause of Action, plaintiffs JUSTIN
6 SPITZER .and JEFFREY SPITZER complain against' all defendants, and
7 each of them, and allege as follows:
8 127. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each
9 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 126 as though fully
10 set forth herein.
11 128. Plaintiffs JUSTIN SPITZER and JEFFREY SPITZER were, at
12 all relevant times, the natural sons of plaintiff TERRY LEE _
13 SPITZER.
14 129. On January 27, 1991, plaintiffs JUSTIN SPITZER and
15 JEFFREY SPITZER were, at all relevant times, the natural sons of.
16 plaintiff TERRY LEE SPITZER.
17 130. On January 27, 1991, plaintiffs JUSTIN SPITZER and
18 JEFFREY SPITZER were present at the scene of, and were
19 percipient witnesses to the accident herein alleged at the
20 intersection of Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road, wherein
21 their father, TERRY LEE SPITZER, suffered the injuries herein
22 alleged.
23 131. As a proximate result of witnessing the injuries to
24 their father, caused by the negligent acts and omissions of
25 defendants as herein alleged, plaintiffs suffered severe
26 emotional shock and trauma.
34
LLfl1Wl! ° U� �, ~ PAGE `LYOF36
1 132. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned
2 conduct, plaintiffs JUSTIN SPITZER and JEFFREY SPITZER were hurt
3 and injured in their health, strength and activity, sustaining
4 injury to their bodies and shock and injury to their nervous
5 systems and persons, and became sick, sore, lame and disabled,
6 all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause
7 plaintiffs great mental, physical and nervous pain and
8 suffering, all to their general damage in a sum to be proven at
9 time of trial.
10 133. As .a further direct and proximate result of the
11 aforementioned conduct, plaintiffs were required to and did
12 employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and care for
13 them. Plaintiffs did .incur and continue to incur medical and
14 incidental expenses. The exact amount of such expenses are
15 unknown to plaintiffs at this time, and they pray leave to amend
16 their pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when it is
17 finally determined.
18 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Loss of Consortium)
20 As and for a Twelfth Cause of Action, plaintiff KATHLEEN
21 MONTHEI SPITZER complains against all defendants, and each of
22 them, and alleges as follows:
23 134. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
24 and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 133 as though fully
25 set forth herein.
26 135. Plaintiff KATHLEEN MONTHEI SPITZER was, at all
35
PAGE!fOF 36%
s
i relevant times, and is now, the wife of plaintiff TERRY LEE
2 SPITZER.
t
3 136. Prior to the physical and emotional injuries alleged
4 herein, TERRY LEE SPITZER was able to and did perform his duties
5 as a 'husband. Subsequent to the injuries and as a proximate
6 result thereof, TERRY LEE SPITZER has been unable to perform the
7 necessary duties as a husband and the work and services usually
8 performed in the care, maintenance, and management of the family
9. home; and TERRY LEE SPITZER will be unable to perform such work,
10 services, and duties in the future. By reason thereof,
11 plaintiff KATHY MONTHEI SPITZER has been deprived, and will be
12 deprived in the future of the consortium of her spouse TERRY LEE
13 SPITZER, including the performance of his necessary duties, all
14 to plaintiff's damage in a sum according to proof.
15 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants
16 and each of them, on all causes of action, as follows:
17 1. General damages in a sum to be determined at time of
18 trial;
19 2. Special and incidental damages according to proof;
20 .3. All costs incurred in the suit herein, and;
21 4. For other and further relief as the court deems just
22 and proper.
23 DATED: January 24, 1992
24 BENNETT & JOHNSON
25
26 RICHARD C. BENNETT
Attorney for Plaintiffs
36
RLMOTBUI)OV PAGE.._...4F
t.
CLAIM _ JUN 2 9 1992
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALI_�FORNIA OOUNTY COL M.
MARTINEZ, CAUF.
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOAR_ D ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT July 21, 1992
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of
California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors
(Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code
Amount: $500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: HICKS, Dorral Jr.
ATTORNEY: Elliott Friedman
Law Offices Date received
ADDRESS: 6431 Fairmount Ave. , Suite 9 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON June 25, 1992
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: June 24, 1992
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
ILATCHIELOR, Clerk
DATED: June 29, 1992 : Deputy
FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Su ors
This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: [29 AZ BY: J � 11 Deputy County Counsel
111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Admin st or (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( his Claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for
this date.
Dated: -7 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. code se tion 3)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or
deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult
an attorney, you should do so immediately.
FOR ADDZTTONAL WARNING SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the
United States, over age IB; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to
the claimant as shown above.
Dated: t3 _y 2- BY: PHIL BATCHELOR b Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
GOVERNMENT CODE CLAIM
RECEIVE
TO: Contra Costa County JUN 2 51992
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVI
CONTRA COSTA CO.
OUR CLIENT & CLAIMANT: Dorral Hicks, Jr.
c/o LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT FRIEDMAN
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
DATE OF INJURY: January 18, 1992
PLACE OF INJIIRY: North Richmond, CA.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT: Client was sprayed in face with
mace by Contra Costa County Sheriff's officer.
NATURE OF DAMAGES: Severe pain to face and eyes and
emotional trauma.
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500,000.00
ATTORNEYS TO WHOM NOTICES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED:
Elliott Friedman, Esq.
Law Offices of Elliott Friedman
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 528-1616
DATED: June 16, 1992
Elliott Friedman
Attorney for Claimant
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this cause. I am
a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing
occurred. My address is:
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9, El Cerrito, CA 94530
I served the foregoing Government Code Claim by enclosing a
true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person
whose name and address is given below, and depositing the
envelope in the United States mail with the postage thereon
fully prepaid on the date and place as shown below.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration is executed on
June 16, 1992, at E1 Cerrito, CA.
17.41
By: M daline Fluhr
r i RIC91VE /. aI
CLAIM JUN 2 9 1992
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA COUNTY aWNM
MARTINEZ, ft&
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT July 21, 1992
and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of
California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors
(Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code
Amount: $500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: HICKS, Dorral
ATTORNEY: Elliott Friedman
Law Offices Date received
ADDRESS: 6431 Fairmount Ave. , Suite 9 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON June 25, 1992
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
BY WAIL POSTMARKED: June 24, 1992
1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
DATED: June 29, 1992 TL �ep�tyLOR, Clerk2fk::ei�
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of S visors
This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying
claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8).
( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send
warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3).
( )
Other:
Dated: G �� Z BY: Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administ or (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD 0 DER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
( ) This Claim is refected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for
this date.
Dated: -7—.21 - 19 Z— PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk. By . Deputy Clerk
7 01
WARNING (Gov. code se 13)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or
deposited in the mail to file a court-action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult
an attorney, you should do so immediately.
FOR ADDITIONAL WARNING SEE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS NOTICE.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
1 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the
United States. over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to
the claimant as shown above.
Dated: 7—.�Q—9 2- BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
1
RECEIVED
GOVERNMENT CODE CLAIM
JUN 2 51992
TO: Contra Costa County
CLERK BOARD OF SUPER S
CONTRA COSTA C .
OUR CLIENT &.CLAIMANT: Dorral Hicks
c/o LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT FRIEDM��f
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
DATE OF INJIIRY: January 18, 1992
PLACE OF INJIIRY: North Richmond, CA.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT: Client was beaten, choked and
falsely arrested by Contra Costa County sheriff's officers.
NATURE OF DAMAGES: Client suffered lacerations, contusions
and emotional . trauma.
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500,000.00
ATTORNEYS TO WHOM NOTICES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED:
Elliott Friedman, Esq.
Law-,Offices of Elliott Friedman
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9
El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 528-1616
DATED: June 16, 1992
Elliott Friedman
Attorney for Claimant
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am over the ,age of 18 and not a party to this cause. I am
a resident of -or employed in the county where the mailing
occurred. My address is:
6431 Fairmount Avenue, Suite 9, E1 Cerrito, CA 94530
I served the foregoing Government Code Claim by enclosing a
true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person
whose name and address is given below, and depositing the
envelope in the United States mail with the postage thereon
fully prepaid on the date and place as shown below.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 'Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration is executed on
June 16, 1992, ' at El Cerrito, CA.
By: M daline Fluhr