No Trail To Follow Filing A Late Claim.

In a wrongful death action, decedent was killed during an August 3, 2010, traffic accident caused by a drunk/drugged driver.  About an hour and a half prior to the accident, a California Highway Patrol officer stopped the driver, but saw no indication of intoxication, although the driver was not licensed, the car was uninsured and had expired registration tags. At the earlier stop, the driver was given a verbal warning for speeding.  After the accident, he was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Decedent’s family was in contact with the liaison from the prosecutor’s office over the next few months. However, no one told the family, and the police report did not mention, that the intoxicated driver had been stopped by the CHP earlier that evening. At the May 2011 preliminary hearing, the family learned of the earlier stop. In June, they started looking for representation and retained a lawyer on July 29. On August 3, 2011, the lawyer filed an application for leave to file a late claim against the CHP, asserting the CHP’s liability for failure to carry out a mandatory duty to impound the car when the driver was unable to produce a valid driver’s license.  The trial court denied the request due to a lack of a showing of reasonable diligence, and the appellate court reversed, stating: “The trial court does not identify what trail plaintiffs or counsel could have followed to lead to these facts within the limitations period.”  (Devore v. California Highway Patrol  (Cal. App. Third Dist.; November 13, 2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 454.)