Case Name: Stephen Paul VAROZ, a minor, appearing by and through Benigno Varoz, his guardian ad litem, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Donald D. SEVEY, Administrator of the Estate of Ronald F. Sevey, Deceased, and Salt Lake County, Defendants and Respondents
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1973-02-07
Citations: 29 Utah 2d 158
Docket Number: No. 12956
Parties: Stephen Paul VAROZ, a minor, appearing by and through Benigno Varoz, his guardian ad litem, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Donald D. SEVEY, Administrator of the Estate of Ronald F. Sevey, Deceased, and Salt Lake County, Defendants and Respondents.
Judges: HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 29
Pages: 158–162

Head Matter:
506 P.2d 435
Stephen Paul VAROZ, a minor, appearing by and through Benigno Varoz, his guardian ad litem, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Donald D. SEVEY, Administrator of the Estate of Ronald F. Sevey, Deceased, and Salt Lake County, Defendants and Respondents.
No. 12956.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Feb. 7, 1973.
Jerman & Dart, B. L. Dart, Jr., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-appellant.
L. L. Summerhays of Strong & Hanrii, Merlin R. Lybbert of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
TUCKETT, Justice.
This action was brought by the plaintiff for the wrongful death of his mother. The action as against Salt Lake County was dismissed by the court below for the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the notice requirements of Section 63-30-13, U.C.A.1953.
The plaintiff is the four-year-old son of Mary Patricia Varoz and is her sole surviving heir. Mary Patricia Varoz was riding as a passenger in an automobile being operated by Ronald F. Sevey which was proceeding in a southerly direction on Second West Street in Salt Lake County. At the intersection of 3900 South Street, Second West Street curves to the west at a 90-degree angle. The automobile failed to negotiate the curve, struck a guard rail and overturned. As a result of the accident Mary Patricia Varoz and Ronald Sev-ey, the driver of the automobile, received fatal injuries.
Shortly after the accident deputies of the Salt Lake County sheriff investigated the accident and a report was sent to the Salt Lake County traffic engineer. There was some evidence which would indicate that the warning signs posted at the approach to the sharp curve were inadequate and that the guard rail at the curve was improperly constructed. The plaintiff through his attorney filed a notice of claim with the state of Utah after he had received information which proved to be inaccurate that the street in question was maintained by the State. After the claim was denied by the State on the ground that the street was under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake County the plaintiff then filed a notice o-f claim with the county. The claim was not filed within 90 days as provided for by Section 63-30-13.
It is the plaintiff's contention that traffic officers employed by the county having made a comprehensive investigation of the accident in question that the county did in fact have actual notice, and that the failure of the plaintiff to give timely written notice should not bar his claim. From the language of the statute it is quite clear that the legislature intended to make the filing of a timely notice of claim prerequisite to maintaining an action. The pertinent language of Section 63-30-13 is as follows:
A claim against a political subdivision shall be forever barred unless notice thereof is filed within ninety days after the cause of action arises; .
Actual knowledge of the circumstances which resulted in the death of the plaintiff's mother by officials of the county does not dispense with the necessity of filing a timely claim.
The minority of the plaintiff is insufficient to excuse a failure to comply with the applicable statute. It is especially true in this case where the guardian of the plaintiff was aware of the necessity of filing a claim but due to inadvertence filed his claim with the wrong governmental entity.
We conclude that the action of the district court in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint as against Salt Lake County was not erroneous. The decision of the court below is affirmed. No costs awarded.
HENRIOD and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
. Gallegos v. Midvale City, 27 Utah 2d 27, 492 P.2d 1335.
. See also Sections 27-12-21 and 27-12-66 which deal with designations of State roads.