Opinion ID: 1303215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: contentions of defendants

Text: [12] All defendants contend that plaintiff was put on notice of the extent of his injury because the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act were public record[s]. The plaintiff, was, therefore, put on inquiry as to everything that it disclosed and, therefore, cannot hide behind his indolence in failing to pursue that which he was bound to inquire about and thus base his claim to an extension of the statute. All defendants rely upon Crabbe v. White, 113 Cal. App.2d 356 [248 P.2d 193], Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie, 112 Cal. App.2d 771 [247 P.2d 133] and Huysman v. Kirsch, 6 Cal.2d 302 [57 P.2d 908], in support of this contention. Crabbe v. White, supra , involved a will which had been filed for probate and the court held that a will, when filed, became a matter of public record and that means of knowledge, especially where it consisted of public records, was deemed in law to be knowledge. Sonbergh v. MacQuarrie, supra , is not in point. The court there held that a complaint not filed until two years and ten months after the alleged assault was not filed in time in the absence of any allegation of fraud, concealment or duress on the part of defendant which would have prevented the plaintiff from ascertaining earlier that he had suffered injury at the hands of the defendant. Huysman v. Kirsch, supra , holds, as heretofore set forth, that the statute of limitations should not run against a plaintiff's cause of action until that plaintiff had knowledge thereof, or should, in the exercise of due care and diligence, have acquired knowledge thereof. No authority has been cited, nor can any be found, which provides that physicians' reports to the State Compensation Insurance Fund of California shall constitute public records so as to give constructive notice as provided for by section 19 of the Civil Code (Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has constructive notice of the fact itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such inquiry, he might have learned such fact.) It would appear, therefore, that there is no merit to this contention of defendants. [13] All defendants, with the exception of Dr. Ferree, contend that plaintiff's complaint does not state a cause of action because [I]t is fundamental that a surgeon does not undertake to perform a cure, nor does he contract to use the highest degree of care, but will use ordinary care and skill as tested by the practice of responsible members of his profession in his community. This, it would appear, is a matter of evidence and not a valid contention upon an appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining, without leave to amend, of a demurrer to a complaint. As we said in Huysman v. Kirsch, supra, 6 Cal.2d 302, 313: However, statements of counsel in their briefs relative to the evidence which may be produced at the trial have no bearing upon the question of the sufficiency of a complaint, and cannot be considered by the court in passing upon that question. ( Stone v. Imperial Water Co., 173 Cal. 39, 43 [159 P. 164].) [14] Defendant Feree contends that plaintiff's allegations concerning the allegedly false representations made to him did not concern existing facts but were in the nature of a prophecy as to the events to happen in the future. It is argued that the question, in such a case, is whether the belief was actually and honestly entertained by those making the representations. This, too, would appear to be a matter of evidence ( Huysman v. Kirsch, supra ) and not a valid objection to the sufficiency of the complaint. It is said that this contention has even more merit when considered in view of the fact that a physician does not insure and guarantee cures. Rasmussen v. Shickle, 4 Cal. App.2d 426 [41 P.2d 184], cited in support of this contention involved the granting of a motion for a nonsuit, and the court was concerned with the evidence produced by the parties. [15] Defendants' argument as to misjoinder of parties defendant found in their briefs has no merit in view of the fact that no demurrer was interposed on that ground (Code Civ. Proc., § 430) and in view of the discussion heretofore set forth. For the foregoing reasons the judgments are and each of them is reversed.