HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04041989 - 1.26 CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District gpverned by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ap r i 1 4, 1989
and Board Action. All Section referertes 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: 10, 000 . 00+ Section .913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
county Counsel
CLAIMANT: DANIEL BICKAR
c/o Kincaid, Gianunzio , Caudle '& Hubert rR .091989
ATTORNEY: 500 Ygnacio Valley Road #400
Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Date received Mai CAG4553
ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March. 3 , 1989. CC
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: February 24, 1989
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
IL gATCHELOR, Clerk
DATED: March_ '9 , 1989. b: Deputy
T Ha11
FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
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: 1,� �`j Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
XThis 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.
APR 4 1989
Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By puty 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 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.
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: APR 5 198 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by �eputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
1• '
VICTOR J. WESTMAN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL
TO _ P.O. Box 69, Co. ADMIN. BLDG.,
MARTINEZ, GA 94558
` DATE
SUBJECT,
i,
,j
t
I
( t
A10 W
1 John P. Caudle, Esq. _9
KINCAID,, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE & HUBERT
2 A Professional Corporation
500 Ygna'cio Valley Road, Suite 400
3 P.O. Box, 30780
Walnut Creek, California 94598 RE "EV '
Telephone: (415) 930-9111
5
Attorney'(s) for Claimant LCLEA as
6 DANIEL BICKAR puty
7
g Claim of DANIEL BICKAR, CLAIM -:AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA
COSTA FOR INDEMNITY AND
9 Claimant, CONTRIBUTION
(Govt':: Code Sections 910 & 901
10 vs.
11 COUNTY ON CONTRA COSTA
12 TO: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Board of Supervisors
13 805 Las Juntas
Martinez , CA 94553
14
Pursuant to California Code Sections 910 & 901 the defendant
15
DANIEL BICKAR presents by way of a cross-complaint a claim to
16
the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA as follows:
17
Name and address of claimant is as follows: Daniel Bickar,
18
c/o Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert, 500 Ygnacio Valley Road,
19
Suite 400 , Walnut Creek, California.
20
Thelcircumstances giving rise to this claim is basis for
21
a cross-complaint are as set forth in Exhibit B which was a claim
22
previously filed by Mr. Robert Eugene Roman.
23
As a result of the claim the attached lawsuit entitled ROBERT
24
E. ROMAN by and through the conservators of his estate and person,
25
TONY ROMAN and MINNIE ROMAN v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, HELEN MORRISON,
26
DELTA-DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT, DANIEL BICKAR, RALPH HERNANDEZ,
27
and DOES 'l through 100 , inclusive has been filed herein (Exhibit
28
THE LAW OFFICES OF A) . Defendant DANIEL BICKAR has filed on today' s date the attached
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE& HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
/ K
1 answer to the complaint (Exhibit C) and will be filing at the
2 same time the attached proposed cross-complaint for indemnity
3 and/or contribution (Exhibit D) .
4 Plaintiff' s contentions are the same as set forth in the
5 claim of ' ROBERT EUGENE ROMAN.
6 This claimant contends that such negligence on the part
7 of COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and its employee HELEN MORRISON,
8 substantially contributed to the collision and injuries proximately
9 caused to date and entitles this claimant to contribution-..and
10 indemnity.
11 Individual and combined amount of claimant' s claims exceed
1
12 $10, 000. ' Jurisdiction of said claims will rest with the Superior
13 Court in '',and for the County of Contra Costa.
14 All '',notices or other communications regarding this claim
15 are to be sent to Kincaid, Giaunzio, Caudle & Hubert, 500 Ygnacio
16 Valley Road, Suite 400 , Walnut Creek, California 94596
17 (415) 930',-9111 .
18 DATED: February 24 , 1989
19 KINCAID, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE & HUBERT
20
21
OHN . CAUDLE
22 Attorney for Claimant
DANIEL BICKAR
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE LAW OFFICES OF
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE& HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
i
CLYDE I. BUTTS
1 LAW OFFICES OF MARRACCINI & BUTTS
1225 Alpine Road, Suite 204
2 walnut Creek, California 94596 JAN 111989
3. Telephone: (415). 9.43-1850
erswtsaewees
Attorneys for Plaintiff cam
G
7'
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10 ROBERT, E. ROMAN, Plaintiff,
by and through the conservators
of his estate. and person, TONY
11 ROMAN. and MINNIE ROMAN,
12 Plaintiff, No..
1 :.
V. COMPLAINT t-001
14. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, HELEN
MORRISON, DELTA DIABLO
15 SANITATION DISTRICT, DANIEL
BICKAR, RALPH HERNANDEZ, NOT!X
16. and DOES �l through 100,
inclusive T:
17uii.�:r:{.c:::: :'CODE 6$60
Defendants. (LUAL
19 Plaintiff alleges:
20 GENERAL -ALLEGATIONS: -
21 1. At ' all times herein mentioned; plaintiff ROBERT E.
22 . ROMAN (helreinafter ROMAN) was and is now a resident of Contra
_2,5_ Costa, County, California_ On February 23, , 1988 Minnie Roman ana-
24 Tony R"oman were appointed conservators of the. person and estate
25 of plaintiff by the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.
26 Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference
27 is a copy of the Letters of Conservatorship issued on February
28
uw ORsices OR
:y^ Pi"E PO..STS.104
EXHIBIT, , A
xUT CREEK.GA 44596
I
1983.
2 2. At all times. herein mentioned, defendant County of
j Contra Costa ( hereinafterCOUNTY) was and is now. a political sub-
division of the State of California.
5 3. At all times herein mentioned defendant- Delta-
6
efendantDelta-
Diablo Sanitation District (hereinafter DELTA) was and is now a
political subdivision of the State of California, operating . a
8 waste-water treatment plant in Contra Costa. County, California.
9
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon-
to alleges that at all times herein mentioned, defendants Daniel
11 Bickar. (hereinafter BICXAR), Ralph Hernandez (hereinafter.
HERNANDEZ ) and Helen Morrison (hereinafter MORRISON) were, and are.
na. 1.3..
..now residents of Contra, Costa County, California_
. •� 5. The. true names and capacities, whetherindividual,.
14
corporate, .'associate or. otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through
100, . inclusive are unknown to plaintiff,, who therefore, sues such
16
defendants by such. fictitious. names. Plaintiff will amend this .
17
complaint to allege their true names and capacities when.
18
ascertained. Plaintiff. is- informed and believes and thereon
. . . 19
• L0
alleges :that each of those defendants designated as a DOE is
negligently responsible in some manner for the. events and
21
2, happenings .referred to herein, thereby proximately causing
•
23
injuries to plaintiff,. as hereinafter alleged_
6. At all times herein mentioned defendants DOES T
24 .
through 15.,, and each of them, were the agents, servants,
25
representatives and employees of defendant COUNTY,_ and in doing
26
the acts and things herein alleged, acted within the scope of
27
28 their authority as such agents, servants, representatives and
Uw OFFICES OF
MAARACCINI V RI"MS
1725 ALPINE R0_STE.204 WALNUT CREEK.CA 9.596
I
r {"
! employees and with the knowledgd, consent and authorization of
2 each of; their co-defendants.
t •
7_ At all times herein mentioned DOES. 16 through 21,.
i
and each of them, . were the agents, servants,, representatives and:.
5 employees of defendant DELTA and in doing the acts. and things
hereinafter alleged, acted within the scope of their authority as
such agents, servants, representatives and employees and with the
knowledge, consent,.and authorization of DELTA.
8 At. all times. herein mentioned DOES 22 through 40,
and each of them, were the agents,. servants,. representatives and
II employees of each of- their co-defendants and in doing the acts •
and things hereinafter. alleged acted within, the scope of their
13'
• authori`ty as such agents, servants, representatives; and- employees
and with the knowledge, consent and authorization of each of
14
their co-defendants.
_ 15
9. Plaintiff- is informed and believes and' thereon
alleged that at all times herein mentioned. the Pittsburg/Antioch
IT
Highway! (hereinafter HIGHWAY) was and is now a public roadway
18
1.9'
traversing in an east-west direction in' an. unincorporated- portion
of Contra Costa County,- California. Plaintiff is further
20
informed and believes and thereon alleges that said. roadway was
21
designed, constructed, built and is owned by, maintained by and
22
under the control of defendants COUNTY and DOES 41 through 50..
23.
The HIGHWAY intersects with Arcy- Lane near the Antioch City
24
limits_ Said intersection is uncontrolled_
25
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
2G
alleges that at all times herein mentioned defendants DELTA and
27
DOES 51 through 60, and each of them, designed, constructed,
t•Aw OFFICES OF 28 "
1rA RRwt:(�I:"1i f AITTi !3! ..
+7]S 4�Ro+E RO..STE,204
wtI NUT CREEK.CA 94596 1 _
r
1 '
controlled Arcy Lane and had
built, owned, maintained and
iownership interest,. obligation to maintai.n. and/pr easement rights
in the. HIGHWAY at' or near the ,intersection. with, Arcy Lane
3
On,January. 12;- 1988`: at approximately 7:25 a.m.
plaintiff was-'.operating a 1982 Chevrolet S-10 "Pick' UL, California
Licenser2B56418., traveling. in a westerly direction on the- HIGHWAY
t
at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane.
i
81 12. On January 12, 1988 at approximately 7:25 a.m_
defendants MORRISON and DOES` 61 and- 62, and- each of them, : were
10 operating a 1975 Plymouth Valiant, California License [E1658194,
i
Ii owned by defendant COUNTY,. traveling in a westerly direction on
+the HIGHWAY behind plaintiff's vehicle.
12
- 13
13., On January 12;, 1988 at approximately 7:25 a.m.`
def endants'BICKAR and DOES 63 and 64, and each of them, were
14
operating a, 1974 Ford Econoline Van, California License 67640'Y, :
15' Ir ,
travelingg in,an. easterly direction on. the: HIGHWAY at, or near, the
IG
intersection with Arcy Lane. At all times herein mentioned,
17'
defendants BICKAR and DOES 63 and 64 were traveling behind, the
vehicleiowned:-.and operated by- defendant HERNANDEZ and DOES' .65 and
19
I
66_
20
=. 1
14. On January- 12, 1988 at approximately 7:25 a.m.
21
defendants HERNANDEZ and DOES 65 and 66, and each of them, were
22
operating a 1961, Chevrolet Pick Up, California License 076343,
23,
traveling in an easterly direction on the -HIGHWAY at-, or near the
intersection- with' Arcy Lane. At all, times herein mentioned
5
defendants HERNANDEZ and .DOES 65 and 66 had come to a. stop at or
26,
27 near the', HIGHWAY and Arcy Lane intersection in order to make a
28 left turn onto Arcy Lane. The rear brake lights on the HERNANDEZ
uw OFPCES OF f .
i 775•A.PfNE 00..STE.204
_.L.UT CREEK.CA 9+596 .
vehicle were. inoperative and the left turn. indica tor, was either
Z. inoperative, had not been activated, or could not be seen. by the
3
motoringi public.
IS Plaintiffit: informed and' believes` and- thereon
alleges
that. defendant BICKAR and DOES. 63:and 64, and each of
i
them, failed to see that the HERNANDEZ vehicle" had came to a stop
7. at or near the HIGHWAY and Arcy Lane intersection because the
$'" glare created by the rising sun obscured the field of vision..
9'
When defendants- HSCKAR. and. DOES 63 and 64 realized the HERNANDEZ
o0
vehicle had come to a stop, said defendant attempted to slow his
vehicle but realized he would be unable to do so in. time to avoid
I1
1.2:..
rear ending the HERNANDEZ vehicle_ . In order to. avoid the
collision, BICKAR ,and DOES 63., and. 64 instead- swerved to the left,.
3
14-
into thejwestbound lanes of` traffi.c, directly into the vehicle
operated�iby plaintiff.
r y
16. Pursuant. to Government- Code Section 910;.
I&
plaintiff, by and through his conservators, filed claims against
17
defendants COUNTY and DELTA_. Defendant DELTA rejected
;8
i
19 plaintiff's claim on or about July 14,. 1988_. Defendant COUNTY
2Q
rejected plaintiff's claim on or about August 2, 1988_ Attached.
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference are
- 21.
22 copies of the claims presented to defendants COUNTY and DELTA and
notice of- rejection. of said claims
23
17. All damage s ..comp1ained of herein are in amounts
24
yet-, to be ascertained which' exceed. the minimum jurisdictional
25
26 limits ofd this court. Plaintiff prays. leave-. to amend this
27 complaint' to state the correct amount of damages. when
28 ascertained_
LAW OFFICES OF
12
S.taNE a0.STE.204
.tHut CREEK,CA 84596
1 C . FIRST CAUSE OF 'ACTION
2 (Negligence Against Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
and: DOES. 1 through -15)
is ! 18 ,- Plaintiff refers to Paragraphs 1 through 17,
inclus ve, - and by: this reference incorporates them. herein as
5 though -fully',.set forth.
19. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
allegei: that. at all times herein mentioned defendants COUNTY and
8 DOES. -I-�_through 15, .and each of them, were negligent and careless
9.
in thejdesign,, building, construction and maintenance of the
10 HIGHWAY at or. near the intersection with Arcy Lane in that said.
11. Portion, of the roadway was designed, built, constructed and
12 maintai
ned in: such a manner, so. as to create- a. dangerous: .
.3' condition. The dangerous condition created a substantial risk of"
1Q harm of the hereinabove alleged injuries when the roadway was
used with due _care in a reasonably foreseeable manner. .
16 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and thereon
17
allegesl that defendants COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15, and each of
i
18 them, negligently and., carelessly designed, built, constructed and
19- maintained the,
HIGHWAY in such a manner that there was no roadway
Z�
shoulder. or: .an inadequate roadway shoulder,: along: the. south:...side., .
21 of the HIGHWAY at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane. The
22_ lack of, a. roadway shoulder or inadequate roadway shoulder' created-
2 1 3.,
reated�3: 1 a dangerous condition which existed at- the time of the
2-4 hereinabove alleged collision.
25 21. Defendants COUNTY and DOES1 through 15, and each
26 of them! had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition
27 of the HIGHWAY and knew or should, have known of the dangerous
I,Aw OiFICEs OF 28 f
MA[RACC:INt L'1"rr;
1715 M.PM PD.STE.10A -6_
wA.HUT CREEK.CA SA596 '
condition o€.` the ,HIGHWAY a sufficient time prior to January 12;
1988 to.lhave 'taken appropriate measures to' have: protected against
injurries arising, from the: dangerous. condition.
.
22. On January 12, 1988, as a direct and proximate
result- .of the hereinabove alleged" dangerous.- condition, defendants
SICKAR and DOES 63 and 64. were forced to swerve to the left, into
6
the westbound lanes of traffic in order to avoid a collision with
S the stopped HERNANDEZ vehicle, thereby colliding head-on. with
plaintiff's vehicle, as hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is
9
laintif
0 informed and believes .and thereon alleges that had there beena
!� proper shoulder along the south slide of the roadway, rather than
12. na steepidownhill embankment, defendant .BICKAR and DOES. 63and64
could have avoided: the- HERNANDEZ vehicle by remaining an• the,
I3.
14
eastbound portion-' of the roadway and driving to the right onto
the shoulder, thereby staying out of the. westbound traffic lanes
t.5_
16.
and avoiding the collision with plaintiff's vehicle._
17
23. ; As' a direct• and proximate result of defendant
COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15 and. each -of their negligent design,
19r
buildingi,' construction and maintenance of the HIGHWAY at or, near
the intersection with Arcy Lane,. the dangerous condition created
20
thereby,; and the resulting collision, plaintiff has been injured
21.
in his health, strength and activity, sustaining severe and
22
permanent injury to his body and shock and injury to his: nervous
23.
System and person, . including, but not limited to; severe. and
24.
permanent brain damage, fractures of the leftarm and left femur
25
requiring open reduction and internal fixation surgery, shoulder,
26
2;
rib and facial fractures, contusions, lacerations and abrasions
t
$ over hiss entire body,. all of which have caused plaintiff extreme
t Aw OFFICES OF
tiAMMA1:VIIKt 4 At"nl -7-
2t5 AIPqI+E A,..STE.20-
W.I. kiT CREEK.CA 9-596 -
f
rias-,call, mental. and nervous pain, all to his damage, ra according
i � ding
`?
to proof.
i
24_' As a further- direct- and proximate. result of
de f endant. COUNTY and- DOES 1 through 15, and- each. of their
5
negligent"" design , construction, building and maintenance of the
HIGHWAY lat or' near the intersection with Arcy Lane, the dangerous
7 condition created thereby and the resulting collision, plaintiff
8. was required to and did employ physicians and surgeons for
9 -medical care, examination:'and treatment. of his. injuries,.. thereby
t0
incurring hospital. and medical expenses all to his damage,
according to .proof.
25_-. As a further direct and proximate result of:
1
13i
''defendant COUNTY and DOES 1:'through 15 and each of: their
` 14. negligent design, construction, building and 'maintenance_of the
15 HIGHWAY at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane, the dangerous
16.
condition created- thereby and the resulting collision,: plaintiff -
will be required to employ physicians and health care
17'
practitioners for medical examinations, care and treatment in the
: future, thereby incurring future- medical expenses, all to -his
19.
further damage, according to proof
.20-
26_: As a further direct and proximate result of..
21.'
defendant COUNTY .and DOES 1 through 15, and each .of their
22 .
negligent design, construction,. building and maintenance of the
23
HIGHWAY at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane, the dangerous
24
condition created thereby and the- resulting collision, plaintiff
25
has been unable to attend to his usual occupation, thereby
26
27 incurring a loss of wages and income, all to his further damage,
according to proof.
LAW OFFICES OF
28�
MARRA(:(.INI 4 Rt•TT] o
723 ALPINE RO.STE.204 -O-
vALNuT CREEK.CA 94596
{
result of
As a further direct; and proximate
i - -
defendant. COUNTY and DOES 1 through. l5, and each. of their
j neglige tales gn, construction, building and: maintenance of-,the
HIGHWAY !lat. or., near the intersection with Arcy Lane, the- dangerous
conditi6n ,created -.thereby and the; resulting collision;
plaintiff's vehicle was completely destroyed, all to his further
damage; iaccording to proof.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays: judgment against. defendants
COUNTY- and DOES' 1.: through, 18, and` each of them, as hereinafter
9.
set forth.
10
;SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
_ Il "
(Negligence Against Defendant CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
and DOES I through 15)
13 28 Plaintiff refers to Paragraphs 1 through 17,
14 inclusive, and Paragraph 19, of the First Cause of Action, and by
15 . this reference incorporates them herein as though fully set.
16
forth.
17 1 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
1
$ alleges that. .defendant COUNTY and DOES .1 through 15, and each of
19 them, negligently and. carelessly designed, built, constructed and
20 maintained the HIGHWAY in such a manner that there was no left
21.. turn lane- at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane. . The_Iack
22. of a left turn lane created, a dangerous condition which existed
Z3 at the time of the collision
24 30. Defendants. COUNTY:.and DOES l through 15; and each
25 of them, had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition
26 of the HIGHWAY a sufficient time prior to January 12, 19.88 to
27- have taken appropriate measures to have protected against
LAW(3MCES of 2$ -
NAYNAt'l:tNl t•
at-TTN
2?�At tune RO_STE.204
'Al MuT CREEK.CA 84598
1..
ink 1rj es, ar sing from t . dangerous .condition
31. On January, 12', , 1988 as a direct and'.proximate
result.- of the hereinabove. alleged. dangerous condition. defendant
HERNANDEZ and DOES 65 and 66 were required to come to a stop- in.
the. eastbound traffic lane in order to make a left turn onto Arcy
Lane, thereby creating a situation in which other vehicles in the
eastbound traffic lanes along the HIGHWAY were required to come
Ito a stog. in: order to,-allow- the vehicle: to make a Left turn. .
8.
Defendant. BICC .and DOES 63. and 64 were unable to stop in time
to avoid colliding with the HERNANDEZ vehicle. In -an attempt to
10
avoid the collision with HERNANDEZ, BICKAR, and DOES 63 and 64
11. ..
swerved'to the left, into the westbound lanes of traffic and
rcolllded with plaintiff, as hereinabove alleged.. Plaintiff" is
U
informed- and- believes and thereon alleges that had there been. a
14:'
left turn lane at or near the HIGHWAY and Arcy Lane intersection,.
15
16:
other eastbound traffic could have safely passed the HERNANDEZ'
17. vehicle. or any other. vehicle making a left turn, thereby avoiding
the hereinabove alleged collision.
18
32. As 'a -direct and proximate result of defendant
19
I
COUNTY and DOES 1; through 15 and each of their negligent design,
21, building construction and, maintenance of` the HIGHWAY at or near `
the intersection. with Arcy .Lane and the dangerous condition
22
created thereby, plaintiff sustained the. heretnabove. alleged
23 f
injuries and damages including, but not limited to permanent
24
brain damage, broken bones requiring surgical. intervention,
25`
permanent disability, future hospital and medical expenses for
26
_ care and treatment, loss of wages and income and property
27
damages, las hereinabove alleged, all to his damage, according to
U►w OFFICES OF 28
M^X*^<:rsr.I r el,rn 1 -1O_
1223 ALwNE PO.STE.204
VAC.trU=CREEK.CA 9.596 -
:. _ ..
proof.
i
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment. against defendants-
2,
j. COUNTY and DOES 1. through:. 15,. and. each., of them,.' as .hereinafter.
I. 4
set forth.
THIRD .CAUSEOF ,ACTION
6 (Negligence Against Defendant CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY.
and DOES 1 through 15)
7 33_ Plaintiff refers to Paragraphs l through 17,
8 inclusive, -and Paragraph 19 of the First. Cause of Action, and by
9. this reference incorporates them herein as though fully. set
. 10. 1 forth.
11 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
1Z- alleges- that .defendant COUNTY' and DOES` 1. through 15.,, and each' of
13 them,, negligently and carelessly designed,. built, constructed and:
14 maintained the HIGHWAY at or near- the intersection with Arcy- Lane
15 1 3,n, such. a manner that: there was no. center. median. barrier, between
16, the eastbound' and westbound lanes of traffic. The lack of a.
17' center median barrier created a dangerous condition which existed
18 at. the time of. the collision. .
19 i '
35. Defendants COUNTY and DOES 1' .through. 15., and each
20 of them, � had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition
21, of theeHIGHWAY- and knew or should have known of the dangerous :
22• condition of. the HIGHWAY a sufficient time prior to January 12,
23. 1988 to have taken appropriate measures to. have protected against
24 injuries )%arising from the dangerous condition.
25 36. On January 1'2, 1988 as a direct and proximate
i
26 result of the hereinabove alleged dangerous condition, in order
27 to avoid !a collision with. the HERNANDEZ vehicle which had come to
' `
u w OFF"CES OF
28„` _
"AftItAcri"I&ei rr�
22S•IWNE a0_STE.204 -
'ALNV7 CPE£K.CA 9.596 !
a stop to make a left turn: onto. Arcy Lane;., defe^dant BICKAR, and
2'
DOES 63 , and. 64 was able. to travel into the westbound lanes of
traffic;. thereby colliding, head-on with plaintiff's vehicle, as
hereinabove alleged_ Plaintiff is informed and believes and;
5 Ithereondalle' ges, that had there been' a center median barrier,,
6 defendant aICKAR would have been prevented from crossing into the
2 westbound lanes of traffic, thereby avoiding the collision with
8 plaintiff.
9
- 37. As a direct and proximate result of defendant
10 COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15 and each of their negligent design,
building, construction and maintenance of the HIGHWAY at or near
11
the intersection with Arcy Lane and the dangerous condition
created. Ithereby,. plaintiff sustained the hereinabove alleged..
injuries= and damages, including, but not limited to permanent
14
brain damage, broken bones requiring surgical intervention,.
Perm
anert disability, future hospital and medical expenses for
16.
care and. treatment:, loss of wages. and income and property
17
damages,, as hereinabove alleged, all to his damage, according to
18.
proof.
19
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment .against, defendants
20
COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15, and each of them, as hereinafter.
21
set forth.
22 .
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
�3
(Negligence{ Against_ Defendant: COUNTY' and DOES;,1 --through 15')
24 _.38. Plaintiff. refers to Paragraphs 1 through 17
25'
inclusive and Paragraph 19 of the First Cause of Action and by
26
27
this reference incorporates them herein as though fully set
28 forth.
LAW OFFICES Of -
NAP NA('(�INI l•XI'lT\ i
1'.23 ALPINE RO..STE.LOA —12—
. _
-As NUT CREEK.CA 94596 - .
I
1 i
39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that defendant COUNTY' and DOES I. through IS, and each of
them, negligently designed,. built., constructed:`and maintained the
4 HIGHWAY at or near the intersection with Arcy Lane in such a
manner thattheglare from" the rising sun created a severe visual
i
6 impairment for motorists travelling eastbound along the HIGHWAY'
i
during ;the time the sun was on the. horizon_ The glare of the
8
rising, sun and the visual impairment resulting therefrom, . created
9 a. dangerous condition which existed at' 'the- time of the collision..
10 40_ Defendants COUNTY and DOES_ 1 through 15, and each
of them, had an actual knowledge of the existence of the
condition of the HIGHWAY and knew, or should have known of the
dangerous condition. of. the HIGHWAY a sufficient time prior to
13
Januaryi12, 1988 to have taken appropriate measure to have
14
1
protected against injuries arising from the dangerous condition.
41. on January 12, 1988 as a direct and proximate
16
result of the hereinabove alleged dangerous condition, defendant,
17
BICKAR and DOES 63 and 64, were blinded by the glare of the sun
18
on the horizon and were unable to see that the HERNANDEZ vehicle
had come to. a stop on the HIGHWAY at or near Arcy Lane, in order
20
to make a left turn onto, Arcy Lane., Plaintiff is informed and
21
believes and thereon alleges that had the HIGHWAY' at .or near Arcy
22 �
Lane, been designed, constructed, built and- maintained in a
..23
manner which took into consideration the glare created by the
24 .
rising sun. on the horizon,. defendant BICKAR and DOES 63 and 64
25
would not have had his vision obscured and would have been able
26
to see that the HERNANDEZ vehicle had' come to a stop, thereby
27
avoiding the hereinabove alleged collision.
28
t1w OFFoCES OF
723 wt,pime AO..STC.204 -
wai,NV?CAEEK.CA 9AS98 -
r:
1 ,
42. As a. direct and proximate result of defendant
COUNTY and: DOES 1 through 15 and each of their negligent design,
j -
bullding. construction and.maintenance of. the- HIGHWAY at or near
the intersection with Arcy Lane and the dangerous condition..,
created} thereby,, plaintiff: sustained the hereinabove alleged
5
injuries and damages, including, but not limited to permanent
brain damage, broken bones requiring surgical. intervention,
8`
permane7nt disability, future hospital_ and. medical. expenses for
care and: treatment, loss of
income and proFe 's
10 damages; as hereinabove alleged, all to:.his damage, according to
j"
proof.
WHEREFORE,. plaintiff prays judgment against. defendants
COUNTY and DOES I through. 15,. and. each of them, as hereinafter
set forth.
14
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 •
(Negligence Agai.nst. Defendant MORRISON,
16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, DOES 1 through 15 and DOES 61,` and_ 62)
17. i 43.. Plaintiff, refers. to Paragraphs i through 17,
TS
inclusive, , and, by this reference incorporates them herein as
: 19 though fully set forth.
20 j 44 Plaintiff *is. informed and believes and thereon
21 alleged 'that at. all times herein mentioned,. defendants MORRZSON'
22 and DOESI 61 and- 62, and each of them,. were the agents and
. 23 employe4 of, defendant COUNTY and in doing the acts and things
24 hereinafter alleged, acted within thee course and scope of such .
25 'emp toYm ent• and. with .the knowledge, authorization and consent. of.
26 defendant COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15, and each of them_
27 45. On January 12, 1988 at approximately. 7:25 a_m. , on
LAw OFFICES OF,28 ,
04A*cwrru+I r airm _14—
1225 ALPINE R0.STE.20-
W.I.-VT CREEK.CA 94588 I "
! the westbound HIGHWAY at or near the intersection: with Arcy Lane,
defendant MORRISON and. DOES 61 and 62,. and, each of, them, so
i
negligently, and carelessly, drove, operated. and' controlled thea.
_ I
1975 Plymouth Valiant-
which was- owned,. controlled;., entrusted and
5 :maintained by defendant -COUNTY and DOES_ 1 .through 15, and each of
j
6 them, so as to cause said. vehicle to collide with plaintiff' s
vehicle.,
8'
46. As a direct and proximate result, of the negligence.
9' "and carelessness of.. defendants. MORRISON and. DOES 61 and- 62 and
10 COUNTY- and DOES 1 through 15, and each of them,, and the resulting
collision, as hereinabove alleged-,. plaintiff has sustained the
II - �
.,hereinabove alleged injuries, and. damages;. including, but. not
13
1
3 limited to permanent brain damage,,, broken.. bones requiring
:_. intervention, . permanent disability; future hospital and
surgical'i
14
medical expenses for care and -treatment,. loss of wages and
15
16 Pr°Party, damages, as hereinabove alleged, all to his: damage,
according to proof.
17
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants
IS � .
MORRISON, COUNTY, DOES 1 through 15 and DOES 61 and 62, as
19
,hereinafter set forth.
20
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
_ . 2I
ence
. (Ne li Against Defendant
22
. (Negligence g s DELTA and DOES 51 through- 60)-
47. Plaintiff refers to-.Paragraphs 1 through 17,
23
inclusive',. and .by this reference incorporates them herein as
.24
though fully set forth.
25
26 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that defendant DELTA and DOES 51 through 60, and each of
27
28 them, were negligent and careless in their maintenance and
uw OFCICES Oa -'
wtw it"Cla N1 r EIRT'S
213 ALPINE a0_STE.los -
•ut NUT CREEK.CA 94598 ,.
I
1 control of' Arcy `Lane at or near. the intersection with -the- HIGHWAY
� . and'- their maintenance and. control of theirownership interest,
k .
3 obligation to maintain and/or easement in the HIGHWAY at or near
the intersection with Arcy Lane. Said. portions of the roadway
i
5 were designed, built, . constructed and maintained in a manner
6 creating a_ dangerous condition, _ as hereinabove alleged. The
Z
dangerous condition created a substantial risk of harm of the
hereinabove alleged injuries when the roadway was used with due
care in, a reasonably foreseeable manner.
I0 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
I1. allegeslthat defendants DELTA and DOES 51 through 60,. -and each of
them, were aware of the dangerous conditions of the HIGHWAY at or-
12'
near
r1-
near the.- Arcy Lane intersection and. in the exercise of reasonable
`13
care, knew, or should have- known that because of those da
1.4 ngerous.
conditions it, was unsafe for vehicles travelling eastbound a
I5 long
the HIGHWAY to .make a left. turn from the HIGHWAY onto Arcy Lane_
16'
50. By virtue of their. ownership- and control of Arcy
17'
Lane and the aforesaid interest- in the HIGHWAY at- or near the
18
_:intersection with Arcy Lane, defendants .DELTA and DOES 51. through
60, and ,each:'of• them,: had. a duty to: ensure safe ingress to and
20 L
egress from Arcy Lane and to remedy the .dangerous conditions by
21
repairing and/or requesting that defendants COUNTY and DOES 1
22 '
23: through 15 repair the HIGHWAY in such a. manner .so as. to remedy
the dangerous conditions.
24
25
51. As a direct and proximate result of. defendant
26 DELTA and DOES 51 through 60, and each of their failure to repair
27 the dangerous conditions on the HIGHWAY and/or to request
28
UW OFFICES OF
defendant. COUNTY and DOES 1 through 15 to do so, defendant BICKAR
".MRAc('1N1 L PINT)
22!At p/NE RO.STE.204 —1 6— -
WALNuT CREEX.CA 94596
1 and DOES' 63,. and 64 were forced- to travel into the westbound lanes
of traffic in, order to avoid colliding with' defendant HERNANDEZ
and DOZES 63 -and' 64, each DELTA employees, making a left turn from
'the HIGHWAY, onto Arcy- Lane, thereby colliding head-on with,
plai.nti.ff' s; vehicle, as hereinabove alleged.
5
52. As. a direct and proximate result of defendants .
DELTA and DOES 51 through 60, and each of their negligence and
7
8 carelessness,. plaintiff has sustained the- hereinabove alleged
j
injurl4s and. damages, including ,but. not. limited to permanent
9:
brain damage, broken bones requiring surgical intervention,
t0
permanent disability; future hospital and medical expenses for
care and treatment, loss of wages and- income, and property
damages,. as hereinabove alleged, all to his•'damage,. according to ,
proof
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment. against defendants
DELTA and DOES - 51: through 60, . as hereinafter seta forth..
16 .
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17.
18 (Negligence Against Defendant BICKAR and DOES 63' and 64)
53. Plaintiff refers to: Paragraphs 1 through 17,
inclusive, and by this reference incorporates them- herein as
�p
though fully set forth.. ,
21
j 54. On" January 12, 1988 at approximately 7:25 a.m. at
22
or near the HIGHWAY and Arcy Lane intersection defendant BICKAR
23
and DOES 63 and 640 and each of them, so. negligently and
24
carelessly drove, operated, controlled, .entrusted, maintained and
25
repaired the 1974 Ford Econoline Van so as to cause said vehicle
26
to cross- over the center dividing line and collide head on with
21
o
f -the vehicle operated by plaintiff, thereby proximately causing
LAW OFFICES 00: 8 28
1223 wIRINE a0..SSE.20a —17"
.. .
w.1,Nur COEE11.CA 9A598 -
I .
I
injuries to plaintiff, as- hereinafter- alleged.
55.. As a direct. and proximate result; of the negligence
i
and carelessness' of defendants BIMR and. DOES, 63 and 64 and each
of them', plaintiff has sustainedthe hereinabove alleged injuries.
f
5. and damages,: including but not limited to permanent brain damage,
broken bones requiring surgical intervention, permanent
7 disability, future hospital and medical expenses for care and
' treatment, losse8..
s of wages and income, and .property damages, as
hereinabove alleged, all' to' his damage,: according to proof.
i
F' WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant
10
BICKAR and DOES 63 'and 64, as hereinafter set forth.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligenee. Against Defendant HERNANDEZ', and DOES 65 and' 66)
13,.
56. Plaintiff refers to- Paragraphs 1 through 17,
14� -
inclusve, and by this reference incorporates them herein as
16though fully set forth.
57. Plaintiff is- informed and believes and thereon
171
alleges that at all times herein mentioned defendants HERNANDEZ
18
and DOES 65. and" 66, and each of them,. were. the agents. and
19
employee's of defendant DELTA and .in doing the acts and things
20
hereinafter alleged,, acted w1thin the course and scope of. such-
21
uch21
el and--with
mploymethe knowledge, consent and authorization of
22
defendant DELTA and. DOES 16 through 21 and each of them.
23
58. On January 12, 1988 -,at approx3.mately 7:25 a.m. ,: at
24
or near the HIGHWAY. and Arcy Lane intersection. defendants
HERNANDEZ and DOES 65 and 66, and each of them, so negligently
26
and carelessly operated, controlled, maintained and repaired the
27
28 1961 Chevrolet Pick Up such that the rear brake lights did not.
LAW OFFICES OF I
t25 At,wME wQ_STE.204 1
At.MVt CREEK,CA 94398
1.
and the left. icator was either inoperative, had
2 not- been activated or couldnot; have. been seen by the motoring
public.; Plaintiff is informed and believes--and thereon alleges
3
that` de
fendants HERNANDEZ and DOES 65 and 66were aware of the
5
malfunctioning brake -lights and improper turn indicator and
6 despite'', such knowledge failed to give any indication of the
T pending make a left turn at or near the HIGHWAY and Arcy Lane
.8
intersection.
9 59. As a. direct and proximate result of such
alp
negligence and carelessness, defendant BICKAR and DOES 63 and 64,
and each of them,. were unaware that defendant HERNANDEZ and DOES
65 and 66 had, stopped ,the vehicle .at or near the. intersection in
order to make aleft turn-onto Arcy Lane. In an attempt to avoid "
13.: { . _.
colliding. with the HERNANDEZ' vehicle, BICKAR and DOES 63 and. 64
1.4
swerved.. into, the westbound: lanes of traffic, colliding with
1.5 "
plaintiff's vehicle, . as- hereinabove alleged. Plaintiff is,
: IG •
informedand believes and thereon alleges that had. the vehicle
17
owned, operated and maintained. by defendant HERNANDEZ and. DOES 65
18
and 66 been. equipped with functional rear brake lights. and a '
19
functional and/or proper ..left turn indicator that had been
20'
activated,' or if any indication: of the pending left turn had been
2.1.. ,
given, defendant BICKAR would have known the HERNANDEZ vehicle
22
had come to a stop- on the HIGHWAY and could- have avoided the
23
hereinabove alleged collision.
24
60. As a direct and proximate result of. the negligence
75_
76
and carelessness of HERNANDEZ' and DOES .65 and 66; and each of
27
them, and the resulting collision, plaintiff has sustained the
hereinabove alleged injuries and damages, including, but not
4w OFFICES OF 28 -
MAKAACriNI r 6t-TT5 n
*225 ALPINE a0..STE.204
w.1.NuT CREEK.CA 94596
t
limited to ,permanent brain damage, broken bones,. requiring
surgical intervention, future hospital and, medical:-- expenses- 'for'.._
21
care and treatment, _ loss of wages and' income .and property damage,,
as. herelinAbove alleged, all-.to: his damage,: according:, to, proof,.
4 "
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgement against: defendants
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, HELEN MORRISON, DELTA-DIABLO SANITATION
7 DISTRICT, DANIEL BICKAR, RALPH HERNANDEZ, and DOES 1 through 100,
ve, for:
8
inclusive, _
9
.First Cause of Action
1_ General damages according to, proofto
,,
2_ Special damages according to proof
Second Cause of Action
J _ 2 General damages according to proof
4. Special damages according to. proof;
1.
-Third Cause of Action
15 ,
5.: General damages according. to proof;
16
{ 6. Special damages according to: proof;
L7'
Forth Cause of Action .
7. General damages according,- to:. proof;
19
8 . Special _damages accordingto: proof.;
20
Fifth Cause of Action...
9. General damages, according to proof
22`
10. Special damages according-- to- proof;
23
Sixth Cause "o£ Action
24
11: : General damages according to proof;
25
�,12. Special damages: according to proof;
26
Seventh Cause 'of Action
.. 27
13. General damages according to proof;
uwOFFICES OF 2$
wRNA(('.iNi M si RTS. I —20— ;
_
ALPINE NQ_STE.244
Y - 1.J1 - .
At NUT CFEEK,CA 94596 - -
E.
•
14. Special damages according to proof;
:Eighth Cause of Action
I
3,
15 General damages according to. proof;
-' 16- Special damages according:. to: proof;-
S
For Each Cause of Action:
7 17. - Pre iudgment' and post judgment interest: ,according
1 -
8 'to . Law,,
1$: Costs of suit incurred herein
9
t0
19-. Such other relief as the •court deems just and
proper_
l
Dated: January •"i1,.. 5989 LAW OFFICES OF MARRACCINI -& BUTTS
a
-13
Byf
14... ' ' CLYDE I BUTTS
.Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21.
22 f
23:
24,
25
26
27
LAW OFFICES OF 28
AaeAffMr eiTTs _21—
t5 -
INUT CReEx.CA 94599 _
KATHLEEN ]
`1 M.. HENRY _
LAW OFFICES OF" KATHLEEN M. HENRY
2190 Meridian Park Blvd_ , Ste. G
2 Concord, !CA 94520
3 ( 415 ) 681-4110:.
ttorney ''for Claimant,. Robert Eugene Roman.
5
G Claim of (ROBERT EUGENE ROMAN- CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA
Claimant, .(Govt Code Section 910)
8 V.
9 OUNTY OF; CONTRA COSTA, RECEIVED
N'►
Jud
10 O: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Board of Supervisors cL K FH Ao of HCLO9tJPEdts.:�,:
11 805 Las Juntas �, c.�t+rA�c ST Co.
Martinez, CA 94553 eY _ T Vuty
12 "
.13 iPursuant to California Government Code Section 910,
-1.4 his claim is presented to the County of Contra' Costa as . follows
15 Name and address of claimant, is as follows:. Robert
1GEugene Roman, 2961 Rio Grande Drive, Antioch, CA 94509.
la ! The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as
18 ollows: ' On January 12, 1988 at approximately 7:36 a.m.
19 z1aimant, Robert Eugene Roman was traveling westbound on- the
. 20 PittsburgjAntloch Highway just west of the intersection with Arcy
21 Lane, when his vehicle was struck head on by another vehicle
j
22 , riven .by Daniel William Bickar who had been travelling eastbound
i
23 n the Pittsburg/Antioch Highway_ Immediately prior to the
24 ollision �with claimant's vehicle, Mr. Bickar had almost collided
25 ith another vehicle which was sto.pped eastbound on the
I
26 R ittsburg/Antioch Highway and attempting to make a left turn onto
27 krcy Lane. That vehicle was driven by "Ralph ,Flores Hernandez.
i
28'
1
EXHIBIT 1 '9]
Claimant is informed and- believes that Mr. Bickar was
2 Iblinded.1by the rising sun- and, therefore, did not notice, until
3 the last moment, that the Hernandez vehicle was stopped in front
of him in the traffic Lane. . In order to avoid colliding with .the,
4
r}
Hernandez vehicle, Mr. Bickar swerved to his left into the
westbound lane of the Pittsburg/Antioch Highway, where -his
6
vehicle 'collided head on with claimant' s vehicle. Immediately
7
thereafter claimants -vehicle was struck by a Contra Costa County
. $ i
vehicle,' .driven by County employee-,. Helen Morrison.
Mr. Bickar was unable to swerve .to the right because
10 .
there was no shoulder adjacent to the roadway which would allow
11
him to p'ass..to the right and his only available escape from
12 a
colliding with the Hernandez vehicle was by swerving to his left
13 j
into. the� opposing westbound traffic lane.
14
The Antioch Police Department conducted an
15
investigation of the accident and prepared Report No. AT-88
IG .
0051.
It
As a result of the collision claimant, who is 42 ,years
1$ -
old, suffered severe and permanent injuries including permanent
brain damage and it is believed that he will require. care for the
20
rest of his life. Claimant's, damages include hospital and
21
medical expenses, wage loss, loss of earning capacity and
22
property ',damage
23 I
Claimant is uncertain. as to which public entity. has
24
legal jurisdiction and/or control over, the roadway upon which the }
2:i
aforementioned collision occurred. . Given the fact that the City
2
of Antioch Police Department investigated the accident, it would
27appear that the City of Antioch has legal jurisdiction_ In
24
EXHIBIT
' 2
order to protect claimant's rights similar public entity claims
2 are being submitted to .the City of Antioch, County of Contra
3 Costa and the; Delta Diablo. Sanitation District pursuant. to
Government. Code Section-.910.,
Claimant contends that the County of Contra Costa is
J
negligent in it failure to properly design, construct and.
6
maintain the Pittsburg/Antioch highway at the location where the
F
collision occurred, including the intersection with Arcy Lane.
Claimant further contends that the County of Contra Costa is
9
negligent in .its failure to provide traffic warning signs and/or
10
signals !for both eastbound and westbound traffic at or about
11
where the location collision occurred. Claimant further. contends
12 .
that the County of Contra Costa is negligent. in its failure to
13
provide a left turn lane for the Hernandez vehicle and is
14
negligent for its failure to provide adequate shoulders for the
15 •
roadway which would. have allowed the .Bickar vehicle to pass the
16
Hernandez vehicle to the right rather than going. into the
17
opposing westbound traffic lane.. Claimant further contends that
18 I
the County of Contra Costa .is negligent in failing .to post a safe
19
speed limit-for the roadway. Claimant further contends that
20
County employee, Helen Morrison, negligently drove her vehicle
21
and allow it to collide with claimant's vehicle.
22
Claimant contends that such negligence on the part of
23 .
the County of Contra Costa.and its employee,, Helen Morrison,
24 I
substantially contributed. to the collision and injuries
25
proximately caused to date.
26 4The individual and combined amount of claimants claims
27
exceed TENT THOUSAND DOLLARS ( $10, 000) . Jurisdiction over said
28
3 EXHIBIT
ciatms will rest with the Superior Court., in and for the County of
1
Contra Costa..
All notices or other communications regarding this
3
claim. are- to be sent to Kathleen, M. Henry, Law Officesof
Kathleen M. Henry, 2190 Meridian Park Blvd. , Ste. G, ' Concord, CA
r�
94520, (415) 687-41.10_
Dated. July 1988. , LAW OFFICES OF KATHLEEN M. HENRY
j.
By /s/ Kathleen M. HenrY
KATHLEEN M_ HENRY'
Attorney for Claimant
10
11 � •
. 12
13
14
15
16
Ii
1$
20
21 - -
22
23
24
25 _
26
27
23
4
EXHIBIT
1 John P. Caudle, Esq.
. KINCAID,. IGIANUNZTO,._ CAUDLE & :HUBERT
2 A Profess,ional, Corporation
500 Ygnacio Valley Road,.. Suite 400=
3 P.O. Box130780
Walnut. Creek, California 94598
4.
Telephone (415)` 930-9111
Attorney(Is) for Defendant.(:s-)
,6 DANIEL- BICRAIt
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE' STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE" COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10 ROBERT E.� ROMAN by and;,-through. .the conservators
I1of 'his estate and person,
TONY ROMAN and- MINNIE.. ROMAN.,
12
z
Plaintiffs, NO.. C89-00'143
13'
vs - :ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
CONTRA. COSTA -.COUNTY., HELEN
1S`
'MORRIS
ON,,.',-DELTA DLABLO
u., SANITATION DISTRICT, DANIEL
16:- ._BICRAR, -RALPH HERNANDE,Z:, and
DOES 1 through ,100..., inclusive,
17
Defendants..
19 COMES: NOW defendant, DANIEL BICRAF,, and in answer to the
20 ; unverified complaint on file herein,. admits, denies and: alleges
21 as follows:
22.'-
That in answer to each and every.- paragraph. of` each and.-every
j
23 cause of action, this answering defendant- denies -each and-every,
24, all and singular, separately and severally,. conjunctively and
25 disjunctively, the.allegations therein contained, " and`, furthsr
26 denj.es that plaintiff was damaged in any. sum `or sums whatsoever,.
27 or- at all.
28 AS A FIRST,. SEPARATE AND .AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, this answering
11+E trww OFMCES OR - - -.
INCA10. GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE& HUBERT
ACOOF"SS ON`
EXHIBIT . ,. . cl
1 defendant':alleges that the_:plaintiff:":himself was negU.gent .in
2` and abouts-the matters set' forth in said complaint which proximately
3 contributled to_ the injuries- or damages complained of,, ,_if:.any,
4.. rand` bars. lthe plaintiff"'s, recovery.
5AS A "SECOND: .SEPARATE` AND- AFFLRMATIVE' DEFENSE,-. this; answering
b defendant: alleges. that."the: acts'-complained of"were-the, fault of: .
7 others for which: the defendant-is entitled to. contribution.
8 WHERE,FORE,. *defendant prays that. plaintiff take. nothing by
I
9 ' said complaint, =for costs d of-suit incurred, herein- and for.: such.,
10 other- aid further relie f-I as..the court may- deem .just -and,.pro
..per..
v
li DATED:: February.-24' 989,
: 12. KINCAID, GIANUNZIO., CAUDLE & HUBERT°
F 13
rY Y - CAUDLE-
15., Attorney .-for .Defendant
,DANIEL: BIO R_
:16
17
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
28
noff uW OFFCEs OF
'INLAID, GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE 3 HUBERT 2_
A PROFL-SWONAL -
CORPORATION - .•
I John P. Caudle, Esq..
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE,,-.&-.,- HUBERT
2 ' ` A Professional Corporation , —_
500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400
-'3_- P.O. Box ;30780
Walnut Creek, California 94598.
4' -
Telephone: (415.) 930-9111
5
Attorney (s) ' for- Defendant(s) /Cross-Complainants) --
6 DANIEL BICKAR
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE, COUNTY OF, CONTRA COSTA
:10 - ROBERT E-1 ROMAN, - by and `through
the conservators of his estate
11. and person, TONY ROMAN and
'MINNIE ROMAN, NO. C89-00143
12,
Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR .INDEMNITY
13 AND/OR'CONTRIBUTION
VS.
14 .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, HELEN
15: MORRISON, DELTA DIABLO
SANITATI6N. DISTRICT, DANIEL
16 BICKAR, RALPH HERNANDEZ and
DOES ' 1 "through 100 , inclusive,
. 17
Defendants.
18 /
19' DANIEL BICKAR,
20 j Cross-Complainant, -
21vs.
22 CONTRA CP
,STA COUNTY,. -HELEN
MORRISON,'i DELTA DIABLO
23` SANITATION DISTRICT, RALPH
HERNANDEZ1 and ROES I through
24 L,_ inclusive,
25 Cross-Defendants.
. 26 �.
COMES NOW the cross-complainant, DANIEL BICKAR, and by way
27
of cross-complaint alleges:
28
f '
E l/Aw OFFI
CES OF
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO,- -
CAUDLE @ HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL.
CORPORATION � EXHIBI
i
I
` 1 1. The .true names and capacities, whether individual,
2 corporate!, associate or otherwise, of cross-defendants ROES I
3 through L, inclusive, are unknown to cross-complainant, who ' there-
4 fore sues said cross-defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-
5 complainant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,. that
6 each of the said cross-defendants fictitiously named herein is
7 legally responsible and liable in some manner for the events
8 and happenings herein .referred to, and are, therefore, responsible
9 and liable to cross-complainant as hereinafter alleged.
10 2. Cross-complainant is informed and believes and thereon
11 alleges that each cross-defendant named herein is the agent and
12 employee of each and. every other cross-defendant, and at all
13 times herein mentioned was acting within the course and scope
14 of such agency and employment.
15 3 . As a result of the filing of the action by plaintiff,
16 cross-complainant has been required to retain and has retained .
17 legal counsel to defend Ihim against plaintiff' s claims and has
18 incurred and will continue to incur expense for investigation,
19 legal costs, and legal fees in connection with the defense of
,20 the action, the full amount of which has not yet been ascertained.
21 Cross-complainant will seek leave to amend this cross-complaint
22 to insert lthe amount thereof when ascertained.
23 4. (Cross-complainant was served with the above complaint on
24
or about. January 24 , 1989 . The attached. claims (Exhibits A & B)
25 have been filed on today' s date against the cross-defendants COUNTY
26" OF CONTRAICOSTA, HELEN MORRISION and DELTA-DIABLO SANITATION
27 DISTRICT. :
28 5 . That on or about January 12, 1988, cross-defendants,
THE LAW OFFICES OF
KINCAID.GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE& HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL
.CORPORATION -2-
v 1 and each of them, were negligent and careless or otherwise at
2 fault, and as a proximate result thereof caused the injuries
3 and damages claimed by plaintiff.
4 6. - That if cross-complainant is found liable to plaintiff
5 in the principal action, cross-complainant is entitled to right
6 of total or partial indemnity from cross-defendants to be
7 apportioned on a comparative fault basis, in. accordance with
8 the rule of American Motiorcycle Association v. Superior Court
9 20 C.3d 5;78.
10 WHEREFORE, cross-complainant prays for judgment as set forth:
11 1. That in the event judgment is rendered against cross-
12 complainant in favor of plaintiff, this court adjudge and decree
w
13 that crosjs-defendants, and each of them are liable to cross-
14 complainant for contribution in proportion to the fault of each
15 cross-defendant, and that cross-complainant shall have a right
16 to totalior partial indemnity from the cross-defendants to be
17 apportioned on a comparative fault basis.
18 2 . That in the event of settlement by cross-complainant
19 prior to :judgment, _this court adjudge and. decree that cross-
20 defendants, and each of them, are liable to cross-complain-
21 for contribution in proportion to relative faults, and that cross-
22complainant is entitled to partial or total indemnity from the
23 cross-defendants, with liability to be apportioned on a comparative
24 fault basis.
25 3 . Reasonable attorney' s fees incurred by cross-complainant
26 in defending .the_ principal action.
27 4 . All costs of suit incurred herein.
tt
28
THE LAW OFFICES OF
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE B HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION -3-
i
I
1.
u, I 5 . For such other and. further relief as the court may deem
2 proper.
3 DATED: February 24 , 1989
4 KINCAID, GIANUNZIO, CAUDLE & HUBERT
i
5
6 � .
JO CAUDLE
7 Attorney for Cross-Complainant
DANIEL BICKAR
8
9
10
II
4 .
12
13
I
I
14
15
16
17
I
18
19
20
21
22 i
23
24
25
26
27
28
TME LAW OFFICES OF
KINCAID, GIANUNZIO,
CAUDLE& HUBERT
A PROFESSIONAL -4-
CORPORATION
4-
CORPORATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE' BY MAIL C.C.P. §§ 1013a(3) , 2015.51
2
I, the undersigned, declare:
3
That I am :employed' in the City of Walnut Creek,. County
4 of Contra Costa, ' State of California; that- I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within •cause; that
5 my business address is 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400,
Walnut Creek, California 94596.
6
That on February, 24 , 19 89 I
7
served the within, - CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY AND/OR
8
CONTRIBUTION
9
.10 '
on the interested parties, by placing a true copy thereof_
11 enclosed) in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, 1 in the outgoing mail box located in my office
12 addressed as set , forth below in accordance with ordinary.
business' practicefor deposit with the United States Postal
13 Service iinWalnut Creek, California. I am readily familiar.
with my office. business practice for collection and processing-
14 of correspondence for mailing and the within correspondence
W11:1 be Ideposited with the United States Postal Service this
15 date in the ordinary course of business.
16 Clyde I. Butts
MARRACCINI & BUTTS
17 1225 Alpine Road, Suite 204
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
18
.19
20
21
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
23 State of California that the foregoing is- true and correct.
24 Executed. at Walnut Creek, California this 24th day.
25 of February 19 89
26
27
SALJOr ARGI R
28
i
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [C.C.P. §§ 1013x(3) , 2015.5]
2
3 I, the undersigned, declare:
That I am employed in the City of Walnut Creek, County
4 of Contra Costa, State of California; that I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; that
5 my business address is 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 400,
Walnut Creek, California 94596.
6
That on February 24 19 89 , I
7
served the within CLAIM .AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA FOR
8
TNDRMNTTV ANIS CONTRIBUTION (Govt. Code Sections 910 & 901)
9
10
on the interested parties, by placing a true copy thereof
11 enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the outgoing mail box located in my office
12 addressed as set forth below in accordance with ordinary
business practices for deposit with the United States Postal
13 Service in Walnut Creek, California. I am readily familiar
with my office business practice for collection and processing
14 of correspondence for mailing and the within correspondence
will be ;deposited with the United States Postal Service this
15 date in .the ordinary course of business.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
16 Board ofSupervisors
805 Las Juntas
17 Martinez, CA 94553
18
19
20
21
22
I -declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
23 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
24 '
Executed at Walnut Creek, California this 24th day
25
of February 19 89
26
27
SAL �ARGIPO
28
I
r' I
IS �
�l• ry i'�,
,
co
i
H
w
1 1
I
0 � a
z `}
t0 m H
` , w
O
V tJ3 N
v ov cin a O � M
' o ¢ o c> U
p o mY
` w N w
o a U
�._ z"EE => Z
� 4 3 � �
z zro
Y Z � O
� {
Y.
1 I
t
t
CLAIM
604D OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
C1aim.Aga..inst the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the toard of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ap r i 1 4, 1989
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: $2 , 500. 00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WarnirLgs"
GO Jnty Counsel
CLAIMANT: RAMON M.=aELGADO''.
P. O. Box\1472-- _ ytit�,.U 1989
ATTORNEY: Oakley, CA 94561 Martinez
Date received , CA 9455.3
ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 7 , 1989 hand del .
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: no envelope
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
IL gATCHELOR, Clerk
DATED: March 9, 1989 �b: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
( ) 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:
i
Dated: Ac, c BY. Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: 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.
APR 4 1989
Dated: 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 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.
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: APR. 5 1989BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by ty Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
Jr
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
AND/OR
NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM
TO: Ra M. Degado
P.O. x 1472
Oakley, 94561
Re: RAMON M. DEGADO
Please Take Notice As Follows:
The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District
governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially
with the requirements of California Government Code section 910 and
910. 2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below:
1 . The claim fails to state the name and post office address of
the claimant.
2. The claim fails to state the post office address to which
the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
x 3 . The claim fails to state the circumstances of the occurrence
or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.
x 4 . The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public
employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
x 5 . The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) . If the claim totals less
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) , the claim fails to
state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the
estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss
so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount
claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars
($10,000) , the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction
over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court.
6 . The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on
his behalf .
7 . Other:
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel
FNBy:
Deputy Cou ty ounse)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
C.C.P. §§ 1012, 1013a, 2015 .5; Evid. C. 99 641, 664)
My business address is the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa
County, Co. Admin. Bldg. , P.O. Box 69, Martinez, California, 94553,
and I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age,
employed in Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I
served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non
Acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope(s) addressed as shown
above (which is/are place(s) having delivery service by U.S. Mail) ,
which envelope(s) was then sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,
and thereafter was, on this day deposited in the U.S. Mail at
Martinez/Concord, Contra Costa County, California.
I certify under penalty -of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated: Vps MC\ , at Martinez, California.
cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (original)
Risk Management
(NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM: GOV.C.§§ 910, 910. 2, 920.4, 910. 8)
Claim to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per-
sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987,
must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of `
action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person
or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1,
1988, must be presented not later than. six months after the accrual of the cause
of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not
later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in
Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553.
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than
the County, the name of the District should be filled in..
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be
filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this
form.
RE: Claim By ) Reserved for. l .rk' f' ing P
l�Umd� e >
R
Against the County of.Contra. Costa )
or ) PEAR 7 1959 ®
District) b l®R
Fill in name ) c��p a ISORS
By, t
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against tY oun y o P� sta or
the above-named District in the sum of $ a and in support of
this claim represents as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour)
-------- - -----------------------------------------------.
2. Where id the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
/-----------------------
3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if
required)
----------------=-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers,
servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
(over)
N
i -
5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing
the damage or injury?
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or
damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any
prospective injury or damage.)
_ --- U -----------------------------
8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
-------------------=-----------------------------------------------------------------
9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury:
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
{'X- n 7„t 'Y. 'Y _ z „_'k
Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides:
The claim must be signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES T0: (Attorney)
or by some person on his behalf."
Name and Address of; Attorriey E r
A InA C)
+� Claimant's Signature
QK l4/ 7 ,�,
Address
L Gam, �' S6
1,A
P
a q .6
Telephone No. Telephone'No. p� J� �'5' 3 1r . A,N.
N 0 T I C E
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for
payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or
officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent
claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding
one thousand ($19000)9 or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in
the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by
both such imprisonment and fine.
I �
PROPERTY/CLOTHING RECEIPT
p t-
NTRAC ST-� Z-G,- REc o. 27$9 6
r
A r
MD;
F
A E r
T -
_ '
€r
- WFC
S
cC��
BOOKING,NBR c7 3 'y �"
I
ANTAKE:, 1 , 7777,
CASH $
SHIRT/BLOUSE SS
❑
COAT T ❑ TIE/SCARF j
❑ SHORTS/ ANTIES JEWELRY i
❑ SOCKS/ YLONS
❑ SWE ER/SWT.SHIR T%H �� Lq P_�� fj f O
F
❑
I
VDHOES/BOOTS NTS/SKIRTHIRT/BRA ❑ WAL T.T/PURSE. ❑ S ---
j ❑ KNiFE GLASSES
❑ OTHER
BKG OFC011A
_ INMATE SIGNATURE .
have received all of my per-
PAT E:
er-DATE: 2 sonal property and clothing.
`i. REL-'Fc:i
INMAT SIGNATUR
r _
li
i
J � .
�''_. . CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim-Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ail 4, 1989
and Board Action. All Sectio'ln references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to ybu 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: $25 , 000. 00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Qapnty Counsel
CLAIMANT: VICKIE GORGONE
c/o Robbins , I Dangott & Scharlach �Akk,U J 1989
ATTORNEY: 1540 San Pablo Ave. 11th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612 Date received Mar"nez, CA 94553
ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 8 , 198
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: March 6, 1989
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board' of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copylof the above-noted claim.
DATED: March 9, 1989 PPHHIL ATCHELOR, Clerk
BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
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 nground
( ) y c a o 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: 3 � �� BY: ' Deputy County Counsel
i
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present
XThis Claim is rejected in full.
( )
Other:
—
Ord certifythat this is a true and correct '
ct copy of the Boar Order entered in its minutes for
this date.
Dated: ~P R 4 1989 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 mail to file 'a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of aniattorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult
an attorney, you should do so 'immediately,
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
pas shown above.
Dated: r R 5 1989 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by _--,-Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
ROBBINS, DANGOTT & SCHARLACH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1540 SAN PABLO AvENuE
WESTLAKE BUILDING, 11TH FLOOR
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
_ TELEPHONE 451-7128
PAUL ROBBINS
MORRIS A.DANGOTT March 6, 1989
ALAN M. SCHARI.ACH � RECEIVED
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County
Administration Building, Room 146 MAR 81989
651 ,Pine Street
IL BATCHELOR
Martinez Ca. 94553 PMARDOFSUPER
Martinez, CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA�OS?n••
B C:aut
Gentlemen:,
Re: Vickie Gordone v. Co. of Contra Costa
Kindly file the enclosed CLAIM on behalf of our client
Vickie Gordon and return "endorsed.; filed" copy to this
office in !the enclosed, stamped, self addressed envelope.
Very truly,
ROBBINS, DANGOTT & SCHARLACH
B kPa1 ob ins
PR:LD
I
;i
I
i
i
f
i
i
f
Claim. to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA VINTY
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per
. sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987,
must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to.causes of action for death .or for injury to`person
or •to personal property'or growing crops "and which accrue on or after January 1,
1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause
of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not
later than one. .year. after the accrual. of,the cause of.action. (Govt.. Code §.911.2.)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in
Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553•
C. If claim is againsta district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than
the'County, the name of the .District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be
filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this
form.
RE: Claim By ) Reserve r 1 fit stamp
VICKIE GORGONE )
RECEIVED
Against the County of Contra Costa ) - (�1A R � 1989
or ). •,
~District) �cLE K BHI A p q
Fill in name ) TR
L
By .. .. .. ... eputy
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or
the above-named District in the sum of $ 25, 000. 00 and in support of
this claim--represents- as follows: ,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour)
January 6, :1989, at 2 : 00 p.m.
-----------
2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
El Sobrante Public Library" Appian Way,
E1 Sobrante, Ca.
----------------------------------------------------------------7-------------------
3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; 'use 'e* xtra paper if '
required) Plaintiff was leaving the library (on a paved pa th which has c
lip at edge) ; there .was. mud -on the path and plaintiff slipped and landed on
her back
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What particular act or omission. on;the 'part of county or district officers,
servants or employees-caused the injury or damage?
defendants negligently and 'carelessly allowed said '.path to be -in a wet, muddy
and dangerous condition, failing to properly maintain and supervise said area,
thereby causing persons being. in and walking on said path to slip and fall on
the muddy path.
(over)
5. What are the names otpounty.,or .district officers:, se'ats ,.or employees causing
the damage or injury?
Coun'ty'-of Contra, Costa
------------ - -- ----- -------------------- ---= - ----------- ---
6. What damage orjinjuries do you claim resulted? (Give._full" ektent of" injuries ryor
damages claimed.. Attach two estimates for auto damage.
plaintiff suffered a, fractured bone%sprain 'to --,17eft, :ankle and' back pain
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of -any
prospective injury or damage.)
specials unknown at'' th s` time; to be furnished when- completed-,
------------------------- ---i------------------ ------------------------------ -----
8. Names and addresses of'witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
Doctors, Hospital,: of Pinole, 2,151 Appian Way,., Pinole, Ca.
Regional Ambulance!, P.O.- "Bok`•77780, Fremont; Ca'.
Bill' s Drugs , 50 Moraga Way, Orinda, Ca.
Mark . Reiley, Berkeley Orthopedics
Ca ------ ===--= ----------------- ---==-=------
g.. List the .expenditures you made on account. of this accident or. injury:,
_DATE ITEM AMOUNT
unknown at present
:i .. .. >.. ., 7
Gov. Code Sec. 91M provides:
"The aim must be s�*gned 'by the claimant
SEND NOTICES T0: (Attorney),., or b ,_s e er on his ehalf."
Name and Address of-A;ttorney ` ' kROBBIN,91"' CH
ROBBINS, 'DANGOTT &'-.,
HARLA. H By• '
:,
1540 San Pablo give ', 1lth-F1'o6`r' E d i Signat ,
Oakland- Ca.- -94,612 Attorneys for Claimant `
Attn: Paul Robbins 1540 Sane Pablo Ave. lltl Floor, Oakland, Ca.
•
.94612 Address
Telephone No. (415) 451-7128 Telephone No. (415) 451-7128
N 0 T I C E
Section 72,.of.,they,Pena1 Code provides
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for
payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or
officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent
claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, ,is. punishable either by :imprisonment in
the county_ jail for'; a period of,.not. more than one year, by a fine .of not exceeding
one thousand ($1,000); or by both such imprisonmert. acid fine,. or by imprisonment in
the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by
both such imprisonment and fine.
'fit':i•' -'' t 1 I 1
O �
� 0
' �4a
44 .�
i O
Ln
N -H
,C� 4.) N U
(d U)
�4 N
N N
.r4 ri G"
r. P4
a ' " x
a E.
H � dAz °k
< w w d
OF m � m � �
O
5
F
N
t-a
W
r' r
i
l
CLAIM
8OAR2,OF SU;ERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) -r BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ap r i 1 4, 198 9
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: $260, 000 . 00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: ROBERT BLY..' � ;
ivildy Counsel
�
c/o Gerald F. Woods
ATTORNEY: 333 West Portal Ave. #A' Y`:<q,U J 1989
San Francisco, CA 94127 Date received
ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 8 , 1989 ► - :oijez. CA 94,%
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: no envelope
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PpHHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk
DATED: March 9, 1989 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
I, FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
\`(v ) 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: 3 q `� BY:::� 9 Deputy County Counsel
III, FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Adminis rator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD
X
D ORDER: 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; 1ff
Dated:
APR IJ�� PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By et4�fDeputy 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 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.
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: A P R rl90 J BY: PHIL BATCHELOR byut Clerk
y
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
I
GERALD F. WOODS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
333 WEST PORTAL AVENUE
SUITE A TELEPHONE
SAN VRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94127 (415) 665-7600
March 7, 1989
RECEIVED
MAR 0 1989
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street PHIL BATCHELOR
CLERK BOARD Of SUPERVISORS
Martinez , California CONTRA COSTA CO. nantav
Re: Claim of Robert Bly Against County of
Contra Costa
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed find original and copy of Claim in the above-
referenced matter. Please file the original Claim and return
a filed copy to me in the envelope provided.
Very truly yours,
GERALD F. WOODS
GFW: ls
Enclosures
I
I
I
j
I
i
I
I
s
RECEIVED
CLAIM AGAINST CONTRA COSTA COUNT MAR r
ClE6tK HSL
(a) Name and address of the claimant: ROBERT BL `,ay 0_ �
eDuty
Box 513, Antioch, California
(b) Address to which the person presenting the claim desires
notices to be sent: c/o GERALD F. WOODS, 333 West Portal
Avenue, #A, San Francisco, CA, 94127
(c) Date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or
transaction which gave .rise to the claim asserted:
October 31, 1988, Unincorporated Contra Costa, Delta,
S.R. 4, East of Neroly Road.
(d) General description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury,
damage or 'loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time
of presentation of the claim: Bodily injury to Robert Bly caused
,by rear-end collision with a vehicle owned by County of Contra Costa,
and operated by an employee. The county employee' s operation of the
vehicle was, negligent and caused the injury.
(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing
the ' injury, damage, or loss, if known: Judy Marie Durant, as
more fully set out in California Highway Patrol Report No.
10-468, a', copy attached.
(f) Amount of Claim and Itemization of Claim:
Medical Expenses: $ 5, 000 . 00 '
Wage Loss :'l $ 5, 000. 00
General Damage: $ 250, 000. 00
Punitive Damage: $ -0-
Total: $ 260, 000. 00
t r"?
i
Signed by and on behalf of Claimant: ...
j
ArF REPORT
Nu a ► �� .' r' „ �T
SPIAL CONDITIONS
t33��r)J+'��.„dh4�L�//LJ►•H"...N HER Ni i RUN JUOICIAL
•` kF[ 4,QT;0'zY telL-�
�
LLCOUNTY REPORTHgaSTRCT HUTCLOED MISO
G r ❑ %-C a
�i
ii O
COLLISION OCCURRLD ON MM DAY YEM 113[4300 NCI:S OFFICER LD,
to
o ----5-�=� -----�?� '4u+ ---------------------�__-_ all
MILEPOST INPORYATHON DAY OF W[EK TOW AWAY MIOTOORA►NH BY:
F
'u150O i$TAiiLi OF MEEPOIIT p t•t G G 1 9i}T W T f S ®ra o No
•0 ❑AT INTERSECTION WITH STAR WWY RLL
®OT: 1500 FEETt NNiHt OF N "` `� T"t • CC.�+►. � ®YES❑1- �NONE
PARTY DRIVERTN LICENSE NUMBER STATE CUSS AFETY YEN.YR MAKEtMOVELICOLOR LICENSEHRRABER STATE
I A cil All- ICA larti`s 2, c 5j s�►, P=CA04), wk r 2 4co1laS' C
ONVER ER NAM[(FIRST.MIDOLE.LAST)
® JsAnAft Ara tJ A
PIECES- PST,014117 ADDRESS OWNER'S NAME ❑SAME AS DRIVEN
Twos
❑ 0 ? "� eE.
PARKED CITY I STATE I 23P-- . " OWNLR`SADDRESS SAME ASDRIV[R
VEHICLE -
❑ K• q. my, sly AiJ om
BICY* SEX I "AIR I RYIS WEIGHT WEIGHT BIRTHDAYS RAC[ C'MSRIONOFV-C'l'C-ORDERS oft' ❑ONMCLR Ed DRw[" Cl OTHER
N0. ) DAY = EM '"
`D trJ 5 x!o 170 to 14
OTHER HOME PHONE BUSINESS OWNS
W NSS G PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS: NONE APPARENT REFER TO NARRATIVE
❑ ���S / ?4-� ''") �'1� (4 15)7 + 4 41(al CHP USE ONLY DLSCIEH[VENCL[DAMAGE SNAGS IN DAMAGEO ARU
YENCL[TYP[ ❑� ❑ ®NIS
LYSURANC[CARRIER POLICY NUMSEN
i
W414O Sh5c6 ®MORS DMAJOR 0TOTAL
Di OF ION a ON NOWAY SPEED PCF c ❑❑ ..�.
It.LT
SIV ►� CNP ❑
PARTY ORIYER'SLICENSENINUHER STATE CLASS SAFETY VEHYR. MAKE I MODEL ICOLOR UCENSENUMBER STAT[
? 1 22 c� [GULF. 1 "toy 1 M�CoCA
DRIVER jNX(RRST-woDLf.LASn(-nf4AM4V'T'`{ E„rrt� '�C Vl�,si
® 1}r/� i�1 %J t-3 T
PEDES. STREET ADDRESS OWNER'S NAME - SAME AS DRIVER
O too Ps �. v c9�G (-
PARK[O CRTV/STATE/%IP OWNER'S ADDRESS ❑SAME AS DRIVER
VENCL[
❑ A `r 7100 P . ALN
tlICY* tlE% I "AIR EVES_♦` yyN,ErICH2T GMT BIRTHDAYS SIRTNOAT[ IIACt pSPOSTON OF VEHICLE ON ORDERS OF: OFFICE" Q DRIVEREDRIVER ❑OTN R
rimCLIST❑ ,fPysf� �T�.I V Ry7 {1 "VO
OTHER HOME P"ON[ SUSINtSS PHONE PRIOR MECHANICAL DEFECTS: NONE APPARENT NEFER TO NARRATIVE ❑
❑ { C ,41(p CHP USE ONLY DESCRISE VENCLE DAMAGE SHAD[IN DAMAGED MEA
VEHICLE TYPE
INSURANCE CARRIER POUCY NUMBER ❑U ML ❑"ON[ n MINOI
r 0 1 Tf. /- (: "tr[i1M. �\4�^� y S t 10-mm MAJOR TOTAL
lift oF+TVON1(KSMNEi- OR NLG WAV j ' 7 SPEED PCF cc ❑
TRAVEL S : . ,'� � 2 50 q,c, C� °n
PARTY DRIVER-s LICENSE NUMBER STAT[ CLASS SAFETY VEIL YR. MAKI)MODELICOkOR LICENSE NUMBER STAY[
3 . . . . . . . . . . .
DRIVER NAME(FIRST.MIDDLE.LAST) .
PEO❑E& STREET ADDRESS _ OWNER'S HAMS ❑SAME AS DRIVER ..
TRIAN
PARKED CITY!87ATE121P -OWNER'S ADDRESS (-�
K:LSAME AS DRIVER
VEHE L.J
ha HEX "IUB EYES HEIGHT WEIGHTBIRTHDATE RACE DISPOSITION OF VEHICLE ON ORDERS OP. OFFICER ERVEN ❑OTHER
CLIST M0. DAY 1, Y
EAR
❑
i
pTN[R SROM[/"ONE - BUSINESS PROW[ PRIOR MECHANCAL DEFECTS: NONS APPARENT ❑ REFER TO NAMUTW[ .':..Q -
❑ C } CHP USE ONLY DESCRIBE VEHICLE DAMAGE SHADE IN DAMAGED AREA
INVEHICLE TYPE
INSURANCE CARRIER POLICY NUMBER ❑UNHL ❑NONE ❑MINOR
❑300. ❑MAJOR []TOTAL
DNR OF ON STREET OR NOWAY PC/ ICc 13
TRAVEL LAST PUC ❑
c"P ❑
PREAARERY NAMESPA BNS
a rcH NonFl�a
CATI
w s
=QAil
IP
STATE Of CAUMMM _
*,rTRAFFIC +COLLISI+QN COaiPIG
PROPERTY ❑No
DAMAGE _of D
SEATING POSITIONOCCUPANTSSAFETY EQUIPMENT �rcRJICYCLE.IH�+�* EJECTED,FROM VER
i-DRIVER A-NONE IN VEHICLE L-AIR BAG DEPLOYED 0-
NOT EJECTED
2 TOS-PASSENGERS B-UNKNOWN M-AIR BAG NOT DEPLOYED DRIVER T-FULLY EJECTED'
7-STA.WGHL REAR C-LAP BELT USED N-OTHER V-NO; 2-PARTIALLY EJECTED
S-RR OCC:TRK-OR VAN 0-LAP BELT NOT USED P-NOT REQUIRED w-YES 3-UNKNOWN
9-POSITION UNKNOWN E-SHOULDER HARNESS USED
23 0-OTHER F-SHOULDER HARNESS NOT USED CHILD RESTRAINT PASSENGER
456 G-LAP/SHOULDER HARNESS USED 0-IN VEHICLE USED X-NO
'7 H-LAP I SHOULDER HARNESS NOT USED R-IN VEHICLE NOT USED ' Y-.YES
Z J-PASSIVE RESTRAINT USED 8-IN VEHICLE USE UNKNOWN
K-PASSIVE RESTRAINT NOT USED T-IN VEHICLE IMPROPER USE
U-NONE IN VEHICLE
ITEMS MARKED BELOW WHICH ARE FOLLOWED BY AN ASTERISK(•)SHOULD BE EXPLAINED IN THE NARRATIVE
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 1 •j •3 ► TYPE OF VEHICLE MOVEMENT PRECEDING
LIST NUMBER M OF PARTY AT FAULT 1 2 3 .coLugON
S A VC/S�ECTION VIOLATED: a �� A CONTROLS FUNCTIONNG A PASSENGER CAR/STA.WG
(i s SO B CONTROLS NOT FUNCTIONING' B PASSENGER CAR w! A STOPPED
• B OTHER IMPROPER DRIVING C CONTROLS OBSCURED C MOTORCYCLE/!CO 1!AB PROCEEDING STRAIGHT
Q NO CONTROLS PRESENT I FACTOR- Q PICKUP OR PANELYRUCK C RAN OFF ROAD
C OTHER THAN DRIVER- TYPE OF COLLISION E PICKUP I PANEL fLL W I TLR Q MAKING RIGHT TURN
Q UNKNOWN- A HEAD-ON F TRUCK OR TR TRACTOR E MAKING LEFT TURN
E E FELL ASLEEP* B SIDESWIPE . GTRK-/TRK TOR w ITER. F MAKING U TURN .
C REAR END H SCHOOL BUS G BACKING .
WEATHER I MARK I TO 21TEMS Q BROADSIDE I OTHER BUS H SLOWING/STOPPING
A CLEAR E HIT OBJECT J EMERGENCYJVEHICLE I PASSING OTHER VEHICLE
B CLOUDY F OVERTURNED K HWY.CONS4.EQUIPMENT J CHANGING LANES
C RAINING G VEHICLE/PEDESTRIAN L mcYCLE K PARKING MANEUVER
Q SNOWING H OTHER': MOTH EHICLE L ENTERING TRAFFIC
E FOG I v181B' -Y FT. MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH N THIAN M OTHER UNSAFE TURNING
F OTHER-: A NoN-CoL uSION MOPED N XING INTO OPPOSING LANE
(G WIND B PEDESTRIAN Q PARKED
LIGHTING C OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE P MERGING
A DAYLIGHT Q MOTOR VEH.ON OTHER ROADWAY 1 2 3 OTHER ASSOCIATED FACTOR Q TRAVELING WRONG WAY
B DUSK-DAWN E PARKED MOTOR VEHICLE (MARK I TO 2ITEMS) R OTHER!
C DARK-STREET LIGHTS F TRAIN A vc sEc7m"OLAT"t cr Eo
Oyn
Q DARK-NO STREET LIGHTS G BICYCLE E3"0
E DARK. STREET LIGHTS NOT H ANIMAL: B VC EECIM VIOLA11 Mt aTEo
FUNCTIONING- O� SOBRIETY-DRUG
ROADWAY SURFACE I FIXED OBJECT: PHYSICAL
C vc s[clm vmAnm aMD 1 2 3
A DRY OYES (MARK T TO 2 ITEMS)
B WET J OTHER OBJECT: D Q� 7 RT A HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING
C SNOWY-ICY B HBD-UNDER INFLUENCE
Q SLIPPERY(MUDDY,OILY,ETC.) E VISION OBSCUREMENT: C HBD-NOT UNDER INFLU!
F INATTENiIOW Q BBD-IMPAIRMENT UNK.-
ROADWAY CONDITIONS G STOP i 00 TRAFFIC
(MARK I TO 2 ITEMS) PEDESTRIANS ACTION H ENTERING I LEAVING RAMP E UNDER DRUG INFLU.•
A NO PEDESTRIAN INVOLVED I PREVIOUS COLLISION F IMPAIRMENT-PHYSIC
AL•
A HOLES,DEEP RUTS- B CROSSING IN CROSSWALK j UNFAMILIAR WITH ROAD G IMPAIRMENT NOT KNOWN
B LOOSE MATERIAL ON RDWY.- AT INTERSECTION K DEFECTIVE VEHL EOIIP: a o I I NOT!lPPLICRp!E
C OBSTRUCTION ON ROADWAY• CROSSING IN CROSSWALK-NOT Orp { SLEEPY i FATIGUED
Q CONSTRUCTION-REPAIR ZONE C'AT INTERSECTION Gmu SPECIAL INFORMATION
E REDUCED ROADWAY WIDTH Q CROSSING-NOT IN CROSSWALK I L UNINVOLVED VEHICLE A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
F FLOODED- E IN ROAD-INCLUDES SHOULDER I M OTHER':
G OTHER% F NOT IN ROAD N NONE APPARENT
H NO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS G APPROACH I LEAVING SCHOOL BUS Q RUNAWAY VEHICLE
/KETCH MISCELLANEOUS
��I \ /w O1CATt
,,a(ap�Jpill,
�/�V+ wowrw
K
PR601 s
A� NE ot�cE.
INJURED / ITNESSES / PASSENGFR_S PAGE
OATf OF COLLISION O_�f- It TIME(j4q L\ t_ +uc NUMB[I��Z O OfRCIO�b AAB[R 0-4 fa
1 11E3\XTENT OF INJURY( 'VN'1``X"ONE) INJURED WAS("X" ONE)M ONLY MBONLY AGE fEll ►MTI TEAT SAFETY
tJ[CT[D
ONLY ONLY
FATAL SEVERE OTHER VISIBLE COMPLAINTNUMBER POS. EOUV.
INJURY INJURY INJURY OF PAIN DRIVER PAST. ►ED. BICYCLIST OTHER
❑'� ❑ 22 T ❑ ❑ if@ 1010 ❑ 1 ❑ Z I G c?J
MAME/D.O.S.I ADDRESS t^= TELEPHONE
1
(INJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO:
AUP=o AI_ E. AL MRKV-=- �r.�
DESCRIBE INJURIES
T
oVICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED
❑# ® t ❑^v ❑ ® 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ loll 3
s -s AK! Y CA i TEL[►HON[
. (MORED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: - l'� TAKEN TO:
W .
= pwo =V
' DESCRIBE INJURIES
COMTOS.Tato -r-o --fin [ r-0 d
VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED
❑# ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
NAME/D.O.B.I ADDRESS TELEPHONE
QNJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO:
DESCRIBE INJURIES
❑ VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED
❑# ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 101 ❑ 10
NAM[/D.O.B./ADDRESS TELEPHONE
ONJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TC:
DESCRIBE INJURIES
1-3 VICTIM OF VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED
❑# ❑ T ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
NAME;D.O.B.I ADDRESS ITELEPHONE
(INJURED ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO:
DESCRIBE 04JURIES
VICTIM Of VIOLENT CRIME NOTIFIED
❑# ❑ ❑ 17 ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ ❑
NAMS I O.O.L I ADDRESS i TELEPHONE
h4RIR[D ONLY)TRANSPORTED BY: TAKEN TO:
DESCRIBE INJURISS
VICTIM OF VIOLENT CNME NOTIREO
fREPARER'6N�AMME .L 1 LD.'NUMBER 4 MIO. 2DAY YEAR REVIEWERS NAME N0. DAY VE
CHP 555-Pap 3(Rev.7.87)OPI 042
87 43637
;ATN O• COlt.t�IgN JTI�.../iit 1 NI:IC NVM��A//`) gr/)I///1.,an I..0 4summe 1
. ♦..,.MO. IQ DAY / Ylt.• �{\. �,. -�.� 14/IW t o '-w46-
ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROkIMATE AND NOT TO SCALE UNLESS STATED(SCALE
t � tNt
910
�t/CK Qrp 74
q 4
T, jZ,
1 l2 t
I
•
{
owl .G,,•w�.zs�—.�a� 1 ��� " � Y Vo. 1.9vomwe"'o NArc � nto, owY vw.
•
CHP 555—Page 4{Rev 11851 OPI 042
«:lid:`^ ..N, 5a:,�7.• .aili}-..
y
N A A AWYN E/t UP P L!Q4 ENTAL MOE �
DATE OF COLLISION - TiMEI NOIC NUMBER ok
OFF RLD �` DUMBER
'X ONE •x.ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTAL ryC APFL CAK4
NARRATIVE OOUJ/ION PAP= O SA UPDATE ❑ FATAL O NT A RUN UPDATE
❑ SUPPLEMENTAL L❑� OTHER: ❑ HAZAgOOUS MATERU{d ❑ SCHOOLBUS ❑ OTHER
CRY/CTOUNTY I JUOICAL DISTRICT i ` RE RTINQ.QgTRICT/SEAT CRATIONNUMBER
UNXtJ G, IV1 S
LocgI T r P W A _iwr.«7L74 �� a 8T TE NIONWAY RELATED
`V /V1 '/)`►1\ YE9 N0.
i. LLQ r�
2. _ CAL t-- 0; � T.oJ =U i`` c �:-
3. pilo AA 5 .y PSN
4.
5.
6.
7.
Sc I
I
8. TWO Y OF +R AST ► ucT�n
s. - b=Vs�E6t? 5Y Aa,_ "r-M oL
12. Fu(L x.-=
13.
14.V��IZGL`SS
15. -1 J eiJ Psck v p W Pt S c �` cs C� S ST
17.
18.
19. e i iLo"K Loc-NTG40 FW v 0.16
20. 3- F nr T-.
21. rtC7+`I�
22.
23. L- �1/TQ'�.a•A1C1=
2a ) zt..tS .
25. S At,1 Z T 1 1mpAecr,
26.
27. try
28. NE WKS wJ16S, t opt W=-tyk
29. L $ L •�N 0111't S Y L N,
30. 5 = o T� MIS F ' L UMC nn
31. o4 106 kx6AT W HSG wRS► Z T'T G 1'•
32. \J- ?- AC H:
RE ARIR'9 NAME I.D.Nilo/ 'IMONTM/ Y REVIEWERSNAME MONTH/DAYIYEAR—
iTi i` "8•! .09it �Y.•"i'e :� ,:(rt tt '>. ..xx... }":VMNSYOIMZ.OEMISWNPNI ai
` `` • FAM
f5i"AA A VE/SUPPLEMENTAL No
DATE OF C.OWSiON mw 42-M OPF+c LD. j,j
1041 c to,
•x ONE V ONE TYPE SUPPLEMENTALCr APPLICAUS)
NAARATWE ® OQLLISpNFWPOST 0 GAUPDATE 0 FATAL ® AST,RUN UPDATE
❑
SUPPLEMENTALQ OTHER '.
HAZA/OOUS MATERM" ❑ SCHOOLEUS ® OTHER
10 iiEPOR'T�N4�OLRTRfCT/BEAT CfTATioNNUMBER
CrTY/COUNTY/NDICAL DISTRICT .,� 44
u �,,,. (, STATE WONWAY RELATED
LOCATIO NVpEAF� C4 ry ,.` YES No
,. v w
2. S -rD 5�t ' �^',F 'f -�
3.
4. 5 -2
6.
7.
WAS
8.
s. 1 - F 'i to S 2T -nJ ,x�', - 2 SA=O—
= I
10. SNS -r't L� vim. 'T �E•. fA
11. -
12.
13.
14.0?Q,316. T-UP41*1
LUSZ '
q.1 . Prs
17.
20.
21. S i .. S
22. 'S Z Gk
�r ,L v`
23.
4
-rYF.27
-'Z-
CAO
G CPA
z C. Q
goo'
29. P o
30. o M Nt 009 G L
31.
32 tREVIEWERS NAME
Ht YtY
P . C c � LA) DJil Z
RAKAMVE/SUPPLEMENTAL PAOE
OATE OF COLI NNON TIME( NCIC NU l320 OFFICE 1.0. ,-JMSER
'Vo q
')CONE ')'ONE TYPE LUPPLAMMALCrAPPJCAKJ5
® NARRATIVE ® COLLISION REPORT ❑ IIIA UPDATE 0 FATAL ® HIT ARUN UPDATE
0 SUPPLEMENTAL ❑ OTHER: a HA=ARDOUBMATEFAALS ❑ SCHOOLSUS ❑ OTHER
CITY I COUNNTY/JUDICAL DISTRICT REPORTIN DOTRICT/BEAT CRATIONNUMBER
✓^ �_ �_LLff// 77cc
LOCA ION
�y 1 STATE HIGHWAY RELATED
iL L L9 Ab, YES rl NO
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
4
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
PREPARER'SNAME r7-
J). MB R MONTH/ Y/ R EVI MONTH/OAY/YEAR
0� ( Z Its: o- c t-z 13-sFs
5312
st
ti. o
Gerald F. woods, Esq.
333 West Portal Avenue, #A o
San Francisco, CA. 94127 �� o
Yosemite-'
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California
► , - AMENDED
.�; CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ap r i 1 4, 1989
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: Unspecified Section 913 and 915.4: Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS, LTD.
c/o Therese W. Tamaro
ATTORNEY: Burnhill, Morehouse, Burford, Schofield & Schiller
1220 Oakland Blvd. #200 Date received
ADDRESS: Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 22 , 1989
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: March 17 1989
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ppHH gg
DATED: March 22 , 1989 BYIL DeputyLOR, Clerk
L. Hall
I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
� ) 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:
z „
Dated: L 341 BY: 7!!! Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: 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. - --
APR 4 1989
Dated: 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 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.
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.
APR 5 1989J
Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR b WIC4�uty1 rk
y Ce
CC: County Counsel County Administrator
v
LAW OFFICES
BURNHILL, MOREHOUSE, BURFORD, SCHOFIELD & SCHILLER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
March 17, 1989 1
.7"
IV
City of Antioch (LAK 11' 1989
c/o City Clerks Office
P. 0. Box 130 ciF cc; r ;s as
Antioch, Ca 94509 De
County of Contra Costa
c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Contra Costa Water District
Attention: Vicki Behrens
1331 Concord Avenue
Concord, California 94520
Re: Alexander vs. Contra Costa County, et al.
Superior Court Case Number C88-03616
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find enclosed a copy of the First Amended Complaint for
Damages which was inadvertently not attached to the Claim for Implied
Equitable and Comparative Indemnity which was served on each party
recently.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
Barbara J. le'o n�a ord
Secretary to
THERESE W. TAMARO
bjl
Enclosure
1220 OAKLAND BOULEVARD, P.O. BOX 5168•WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596•(415) 937-4950
- 1
JOHN KEVIN CROWLEY, ESQ.
2 Attorney at Law
831 S. Winchester Boulevard
3 San Jose, California 95128
(408) 244-47.77
4 FEB 061989
Attorney for Plaintiff KCRAML c, WCtgRK
CWWCMAC"Tr
9TANLFMNd M
0£PIIiT
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9
10
LINDA ALEXANDER, ) No. C-88-03616
11 )
Plaintiff, } FIRST AMENDED
12 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(Wrongful Death)
13 vs. )
14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; CONTRA COSTA )
WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF ANTIOCH; )
15 DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS; and DOES I )
through L, inclusive, ) RE "MVED
16 Defendants. } X989
17 } H A F EP OSS
18 Plaintiff, LINDA ALEXANDER, alleges:
CL-SK " �
Piny
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 I
21 Plaintiff, LINDA ALEXANDER, is the mother of JASON
22 ALEXANDER, deceased and is the sole surviving heir at law of
23 JASON ALEXANDER, hereinafter referred to as "decedent" .
24 II
25 Defendant, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA is, and at all times
26 mentioned herein was, a county duly organized and existing under
27 the laws of the State of California. °
28
(ENENBAUM, CROWLEY _
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1
031 S. WINCHESTER _
BOULEVARD
SAN .LOSE.
CALIFORNIA 95128
(408) 244-4777
1
III
2
Defendant, CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT is, and at all times
3
mentioned herein was, a . water district, duly organized and
4
existing under the laws of the State of California.
5
IV
6
Defendant, CITY OF ANTIOCH, is, and at all times mentioned
7
herein was, a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing
8 "
under the laws of the State of California and situated in the
9
County of Contra Costa.
10
V
11
Defendant, DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS is, and 'at all times
12
mentioned herein was, a corporation, duly organized and existing
13
under the 'laws of the State of California.
14
VI
15
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
16
defendants sued herein as DOES I through L, inclusive, and
17 -
therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names.
18
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names
19
and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and
20
believes and thereon alleges that each of said fictitiously named
21
defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
22
herein alleged, and that plaintiff's injuries as herein alleged
23
were proximately caused by their acts.
24
VII
25
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
26
at all times mentioned herein each of the defendants sued herein
27
as DOES I through L, inclusive, was the agent and employee of
28
TENENBAUM, CROWLEY
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 B. WINCHESTER 2
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE.
CALIFORNIA 95128
1AnRI 9dd_G777
1 each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting
2
within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.
3
VIII
4
At all times mentioned, defendants, and each of them, owned
5
a partially fenced tract of land surrounding the ' creek located
6
east of Kendrec Street on Delta Fair Street in the City of
7 Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of California.
81 IX
9
At all times material hereto, plaintiff has complied with
10
the statutory requirements of Government Code Section 910 et seq.
11
and has filed claims with all pertinent government entities
12
involved in this action.
13 X
14
At all times material hereto, defendants maintained, or
15
allowed to exist upon said premises, a spillway or canal
16
overflow, which spillway or canal overflow was inherently
17 _
dangerous to children being in, about and upon the premises, in
18
the following respects as well as others:
19
A. The fence immediately surrounding the spillway was
20
negligently maintained so as to allow uninhibited access to the
21
spillway by children;
22 B. The remaining areas contiguous to the creek were unfenced
23
so as to allow uninhibited access to the spillway by children;
24 C. The area at the base of. the spillway was covered by
25
foliage so as to obscure the body of water standing there;
26
D. The floor or bottom of said spillway was very slippery,
27
so that persons in the spillway were unable to maintain footing
28
TENENBAUM, CROWL.EY or balance;
& REGAN
.ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3
831 S. WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD -
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128 '
(408) 244-4777
l E. The floor or bottom of said spillway was steeply angled
2
toward the body of water, interfering with the footing or
3
balance or control of a person in the spillway;
4
F. The body of water at the base of the spillway was
5
extremely deep;
6
G. The spillway was left in a highly dangerous, dilapidated,
7
filthy, , infested, decrepit, defectively designed and negligently
8
cared for and maintained condition.
9
XI
10
All of the foregoing conditions mentioned in Paragraph X
11
were hidden, latent and not discoverable by children of tender
12
years, as the minor child of the plaintiff herein.
13
XII
14
Defendants, and each of them, owned, occupied, possessed,
15
controlled and maintained a tract of land and spillway located in
16
a populated section of City of Antioch, and abuts land owned by
17
DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS at or near 3915 Delta Fair Boulevard, City
18
of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, State of California.
19
XIII
20
On October 2, 1985, and prior thereto, the spillway was in a
21
dangerous condition which created a substantial and unreasonable
22
risk of death or serious bodily harm when used with due care in a
23
manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be
24
used and for reasons previously set forth in Paragraph X, the
25
condition was not reasonably apparent to, and would not be
26
anticipated by, a reasonable person using the property with due
27 o
care.
28
TENENBAUM, CROWLEY f/f
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 B. WINCHESTER 4
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128
{408} 246-4777
1.
XIV
2
Defendants, and each of them, had actual knowledge of the
3
existence of the condition and knew, or should have known, of its
4
dangerous character a sufficient period of time prior to the
5
injury to have taken measures to protect against 'the dangerous
6
condition.
7
XV
8
For several months prior to decedent's death, numerous
9
children from the neighborhood around defendants land were
10
attracted to defendants' land and spillway and such children
11
played on, in and about defendants' land and spillway area.
12
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
l3
defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should
14
have known, that such children played on defendants' land and in
15
the area immediately around the spillway. Plaintiff is also
16
informed and believes and thereon alleges that there were
17
previous incidents in which children had drowned in the spillway
18
and that the defendants, and each of them, were aware of these
19
incidents.
XVI
21
The presence of the spillway with several feet of water at
22
its base constituted an unreasonable risk of harm to children
23
playing in the area of the spillway. Defendants, and each of
24
them, owed a duty to such children, including decedent, to
25
26 exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger so
represented by , the , spillway. In disregard of their duty,
27 .�
defendants, and each of them, carelessly and negligently
28
TENENBAUM, CROWLEY .permitted the spillway and creek area to be and remain open,
Be REGAN - —
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
83T S. WINCHESTER 5
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE.
CALIFORNIA 9S128
'(408) 244.4777
1
unfenced, unguarded, and unprotected, without any signs or
2
warnings of any character. Defendants, and each of them, could
3
have reasonably provided safeguards which would have obviated the
4 •
inherent danger of said spillway and creek area without
5
materially affecting the purpose for which the ' spillway was
6 maintained.
7 XVII
8 On or about October 2, 1985, at approximately 5:00 p.m. to
9
6: 00 p.m. decedent, then six (6) years old and a companion, six
10
(6) year old John Sebastian Finigan, entered defendant's premises
11
in an unfenced area and proceeded to the above-mentioned
12
spillway. Finigan slipped into a body of water at the bottom of
13
the spillway. Decedent immediately jumped into the water to
14
rescue Finigan. Finigan was able to swim to safety while
15
decedent sank into the water to his death by drowning.
16 XVIII
17
The death of said minor was a direct and proximate result of
18
negligence of defendants, and each of them, in maintaining the
19
inherently dangerous spillway canal overflow and creek area.
20 XIX
21
As a result of the wrongful death caused by the negligence
22
of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was caused great
23
damage and injury in that she incurred medical and funeral
24
expenses in an amount not fully ascertained by plaintiff at this
25
time, and she will amend this complaint when the same is known to
26
her.
27
28
,ENENBAUM. CROWLEY -
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6
831 S. WINCHESTER
BOULFVARO _
SAN .LOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128
•(408) 244-4777
1
XX
2
As a direct and proximate result of the accident hereinabove
3
mentioned, and as a result of the wrongful death of said minor,
4
plaintiff lost his services, society and companionship, all to
5
her great damage and injury in an amount not fully ascertained by
6
plaintiff at this time, and she will amend this compliant when
7
the same is known to her.
8
XXI
9
As a direct and proximate result of the accident hereinabove
10
mentioned, and as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful
11
death of said minor, plaintiff sustained pecuniary injury in an
12
amount not fully ascertained by plaintiff at this time, and she
13
will amend this complaint when the same is known to her.
14
WHEREFORE, . plaintiff demands judgment against defendants,
15
and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
16
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Plaintiff realleges paragraphs I through XIII, and XVIII of
19
the First Cause of Action as though fully set forth below.
20
II
21
At all times herein mentioned_, defendant DELTA VIEW
22
APARTMENTS and DOES XX - XXV, owned, maintained, controlled,
23
managed and operated the apartment complex known as DELTA VIEW
24
APARTMENT ' COMPLEX located at 3915 Delta Fair Boulevard, City of
25
Antioch, County of Contra Costa.
26
27
28
TENENBAUM, CROWLEY -
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 S. WINCHESTER 7
BOULEVARD
SAN .LOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128
(408) 244-4777
1
III
2
On or about October 2, 1985, defendant DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS
3
and DOES XX - XXV, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care,
A
should have known, that children living in the DELTA VIEW
5
APARTMENT COMPLEX traversed from the apartment complex to an area
6
of land surrounding the creek including the spillway, canal
7
overflow and creek area located east of Kendrec Street on Delta
8
Fair Street in the City of Antioch, County of Contra Costa, which
9
said creek area abuts the DELTA VIEW APARTMENT COMPLEX.
10
IV
11
On or about October 2, 1985, decedent and a friend, John
12
Sebastian Finigan, at approximately 5: 00 p.m. to 6: 00 p.m.
13
proceeded from the DELTA VIEW APARTMENT COMPLEX to the
14
aforementioned abutting creek, canal overflow and spillway area.
15
Finigan slipped into a body of water at the base of the spillway.
16
In a rescue attempt, decedent jumped into the water and drowned
17
while Finigan swam to safety.
18 V
19
At the aforementioned time and place, . defendant DELTA VIEW
20
APARTMENT COMPLEX and DOES XX - XXV, negligently maintained,
21
occupied, managed, supervised, controlled and operated DELTA VIEW
22
APARTMENT COMPLEX, and the area surrounding the DELTA VIEW
23
APARTMENT COMPLEX, in that it failed to provide a fence or other
24
barrier to separate the apartment complex from the abutting
25
creek, canal overflow and spillway area and failed to give
26
adequate warning of the dangerous condition of the property which
27 -
adjoins DELTA VIEW APARTMENT tCOMPLEX. Defendant DELTA VIEW
28
TENENBAUM, CROWLEY APARTMENT COMPLEX and DOES XX - XXV, negligently failed to take
& REGAN.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8
-
831 S. WINCHESTER O
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE.
CALIFORNIA 95128 -
'(408) 244.4777
C`
' I
1 �
steps to either make the condition safe or warn the decedent and
2
his companion Finigan of the dangerous condition, all of which
3
caused the decedent to proceed to the spillway from the apartment
4
complex and drown in the water at the base of the spillway in his
5 I
rescue attempt of his companion, Finigan.
6 VI
7
As . a proximate result, of the negligence of DELTA VIEW
8
APARTMENT COMPLEX, and DOES XX - XXV, decedent drowned.
9
VII
10
As a result of the wrongful death caused by the negligence
11
of DELTA VIEW APARTMENT COMPLEX, and DOES XX - XXV, plaintiff was
12
caused great damage and injury in that she incurred medical and
13
funeral expenses in an amount not fully ascertained by plaintiff
14
at this time, and she will amend this complaint when the same is
15
known to her.
16
VIII
17
As a direct and proximate result of the accident hereinabove
18
mentioned, and as a result of the wrongful death of said minor,
19
plaintiff lost his services, society and companionship, all to
20
her great damage and injury in an amount not fully ascertained by
21
plaintiff at this time, and she will amend this compliant when
22
the same is known to her.
23
IX
24
As a direct and proximate result of the accident hereinabove
25
mentioned, and as a direct and proximate result of the wrongful
26
death of said minor, plaintiff sustained pecuniary injury in an
27 _
amount not fully ascertained by plaintiff at this time, and she
28
TENENBAUM. CROWLEY will amend this complaint when the same is known to her. _.
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 S. WINCHESTER 9
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128
(408) 244-4777
1 -
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants,
2
and each of them, jointly, severally, or in the alternative, for
3
the following:
d
1. General damages;
5
2. All medical and incidental expense according to proof;
6
3 . All loss of earnings, according to proof;
7
4 . For punitive damages;
8
5. All attorney's fees and costs of suit;
9
6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem
10
proper.
11
12
Dated: 1989 .
13 ffOHN KEVIN CROW Y
s Attorney for P1 intiff
14 LINDA ALEXANDER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
�ENENBAU M, CROWLEY
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
831 S. WINCHESTER 10
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128
'(408) 244-4777
1
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - CCP SECTION 1013 (a) 3, 2015.5
2
I, the undersigned, declare:
3
I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been over
4
the age of eighteen years, a resident of and employed in the County
5
of Santa Clara, California, and not a party of the within entitled
6
action or cause. My business address is Tenenbaum, Crowley &
7
Regan, 831 S. Winchester Boulevard, San Jose, California 95128. I
8
am familiar with the firm's business practice for collection and
9
processing of correspondence. for mailing with the United States
10
Postal Service. I served a true copy of the attached FIRST AMENDED
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES by placing said copy(ies) in an envelope
12
addressed as follows:
13
CARL P.A. NELSON, ESQ. TOM BEATTY, ESQ.
14 BOLD & POLISNER 1211 NEWELL AVENUE, # 202
1990 N. CALIFORNIA BLVD. WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
15 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 (415) 939-5330
(415) 933-7777
16
which envelopes were then sealed and, with postage fully prepaid .
17
thereon, was on FEBRUARY 6 , 1989 , placed for collection and mailing
18
at my place of business following ordinary business practices.
19
Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal
20
Service at San Jose, California on the above-referenced date in the
21
ordinary course of business.
22
I declare- under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
23
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on
24
FEBRUARY 6, 1989, at San Jose, California.
25
26
t
27 __ Suzaxirie Marie Clifton
28ALEXANDERv. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.
L
TENENBAUM. CROWLEY ASE NO. C-88-03616
& REGAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11 .
831 S. WINCHESTER
BOULEVARD
SAN JOSE,
CALIFORNIA 95128 -
0 1989
PPv,TCHn tnp
hN
EQ
W H
Q
44 %D
o0
5 z � 'a
V ¢ �
N N O
°°¢ ° � Ua°oa° Ln
u� vXW Ln
a0w v ��
ocs zm ¢ , SON
aMy00 4-) 4J N
o az 0 4 W ,y'
a
U O 4-JU
x
w 4a -14
O w N N
>y,0) -� g
a 4J -rj
a J-►
z � o . Iw
o \LO as
m
t •
- CLAIM
./ ?; OARD 'OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION
the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT Ap r i 1 4, 1989
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: Unspecified Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
CLAIMANT: DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS, LTD. , Co,,tnty Counsel
c/o Therese W. Tamaro
ATTORNEY: Burnhill, Morehouse, Burford, Schofield & Schiller 1989
1220 Oakland Blvd. #200 Date received cMartinez, CA 94553
ADDRESS: Walnut Creek, CA 94596 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON March 8 1987
BY MAIL POSTMARKED: no date
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
PFHHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk
DATED: March 9, 1989 BY: Deputy
L. Hall
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
�) 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: 311 ' q BY: '- Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2)
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER: 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.
i
Dated: 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 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.
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
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
AND/OR
NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM
T0: Delta 'ew Apartments, Ltd.
c/o There W. Tamaro
Burnhill, Mo ehouse, Burford, Schofield & Schiller
1220 Oakland B d.
Walnut Creek, CA 4596
Re: DELTA VIEW APARTME , LTD.
Please Take Notice As Follows:
The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District
governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially
with the requirements of California Government Code section 910 and
910 . 2, or is otherwise insufficient for the reasons checked below:
1 . The claim fails to state the name and post office address of
the claimant.
2 . The claim fails to state the post office address to which
the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.
x 3 . The claim fails to state the circumstances of the occurrence
or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.
4 . The claim fails to state the name(s) of the public
employee(s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
5 . The claim fails to state whether the amount claimed exceeds
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) . If the claim totals less
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) , the claim fails to
state the amount claimed as of the date of presentation, the
estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage or loss
so far as known, or the basis of computation of the amount
claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars
($10, 000) , the claim fails to state whether jurisdiction
over the claim would rest in municipal or superior court.
6 . The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on
his behalf.
X 7 . Other: First Amended Complaint not attached as stated
in claim.
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, County Counsel
By. I
Deputy Count el
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
C.C.P. 99 1012 , 1013a, 2015 .5; Evid. C. 99 641 , 664 )
My business address is the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa
County, Co. Admin. Bldg. , P.O. Box 69, Martinez, California, 94553,
and I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age,
employed in Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I
served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non
Acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope(s) addressed as shown
above (which is/are place(s) having delivery service by U.S. Mail) ,
which envelope(s) was then sealed and postage fully prepaid thereon,
and thereafter was, on this day deposited in the U.S. Mail at
Martinez/Concord, Contra Costa County, California.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated: p�����,\� , at Martinez, California.
cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (original)
Risk Management
(NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM: GOV.C.§§ 910, 910 . 2, 920 .4, 910. 8)
CLAIM FOR IMPLIED EQUITABLE AND COMPARATIVE INDEM
TO: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
bs
You are hereby notified that DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS, LTD.,
erroneously sued as DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS, whose address is 3915 Delta
Fair Blvd. , Antioch , CA 94509 , claims implied equitable and
comparative indemnity from COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA as a result of an
action filed against this claimant on March 20, 1986 in Santa Clara
County Superior Court, Case Number 597856, then transferred to Contra
Costa County Superior Court, Case Number C88-03616, entitled LINDA
ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA WATER
DISTRICT, CITY OF ANTIOCH, DELTA VIEW APARTMENTS, DOES I through L,
Defendants, claiming damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff's
son, JASON ALEXANDER on October 2, 1985, as more fully set forth in
plaintiff's First Amended Complaint attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference, without any admissiion as to the truth or
falsity of the matters set forth therein.
Summons and Complaint in this action were served on this
claimant on December 14, 1988 and the First Amended Complaint was
mailed to this claimant on February 8, 1989.
The names of the public employee( s) causing claimant's
injuries are not known to claimant at the present time.
The injuries and/or damages to claimant are not fully known
as of the date of presentation of this claim, but are anticipated to
be whatever damage and/or liabilities and/or costs which are assessed
against this claimant in this action.
1
Jurisdiction over the claim rests in the Superior Court.
All notices or other communications with regard to the claim
should be sent to claimant in care of its attorney in this action,
THERESE W. TAMARO, BURNHILL, MOREHOUSE, BURFORD, SCHOFIELD & SCHILLER,
1220 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
Dated: March 7, 1989.
BURNHILL, MOREHOU E, BURFORD,
SC OFIE & SCHI ER, INC.
By ,/r/ z
THE ESE W. TA ARO
Att, rneys for Defendant
De= View Apartments, Ltd.
2
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CCP 1013 (a) , 2015.5
2
I declare that:
3
I am employed in the County of Contra Costa ; I am
4
over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within
5
cause; that my business address is 1220 Oakland Boulevard ,
6
Suite 200 , Walnut Creek , California 94596 . On
7
March 7, 1989 I served the within CLAIM FOR
8
9 DIPLIED EQUITABLE AND COMPARATIVE IMRY TITY
10
11
12 in said action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a
13 sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid , in the
14 U. S. mail at Walnut Creek, California , addressed as follows:
15
16 County of Contra Costa
c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
17 651 Pine Street , Room 106
Martinez, California 94553
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I declare under penal ty of perjury of the laws of the
25
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct .
26
Executed on March 7, 1989 at Walnut Creek, California .
27
28
BURNHILL,MOREHOUSE, f`-5''%�' �'•�iLl/-
BURFORO,SCHOFIELD LEUNAND
6 SCHILLER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P.O.BOX 5166
WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596
1A151 937-4950
✓ !'t t Omol
.�
ca N �
N
o
c�
0 � �
4
0 �
10
�c
U
W
U
4
� O
0
A � l� O
O ow.< ', fA
O
CO
p O
i
4�.
N O D! 00 Q
7 0 '1 •� �6.t
lid SA w m
J W a
o` d
o
0
a �
s