Jamison v. State of California

In Jamison v. State of California (1973) 31 Cal. App. 3d 513, the Court found substantial compliance even though the proper entity never received the claim. There, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident involving a vehicle owned by the California Department of Water Resources. The plaintiff presented a timely claim, but to the Department of Water Resources rather than to the State Board of Control. There was no evidence that the claim was thereafter received by the Board of Control. Nevertheless, we held that the plaintiff had substantially complied, reasoning: "It appears that a claim, valid and proper on its face, was presented within the statutory time period to an officer or employee of the exact state agency which allegedly was responsible for the tort. The presentation was made in good faith for the purpose of apprising the state of the existence of the claim and to enable it to investigate the validity thereof. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the officer or employee served to forward the claim immediately to the State Board of Control and we hold that the party served had a duty to do so. Certainly, any responsible officer or employee of a major state agency knows, or should know, that if a substantial claim for damages is presented that it should be forwarded to the Board of Control." (Jamison v. State of California, supra, 31 Cal. App. 3d 513, 518.)