Court Opinion

ID: 9720822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:42:19.392339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.540066
License: Public Domain

POCHE, J.
I concur fully in the judgment and reasoning of my colleagues.
For purposes of emphasis I add that had the Legislature in amending Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 meant to exclude incompetent persons from the ticking of the three-year limitations clock imposed by that section it would have been a simple matter to do so. That draft-persons know how to so exempt such plaintiffs is demonstrated in the very next section, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, relating to actions against attorneys for wrongful acts or omissions. Section 340.6 uses the same format as used in section 340.5 (“In no event shall the time for commencement of legal action exceed four years except that the period shall be tolled during the time .. . ”) but then excepts the time “The plaintiff is under a legal or physical disability which restricts the plaintiff’s ability to commence legal action.”
Apparently then the Legislature said what it meant and meant what it said in both sections 340.5 and 340.6 when it used the words “In no event.. .. ” What is equally apparent is that it meant to make it easier for insane persons to sue their attorneys for malpractice than for these same insane persons to srue their medical doctors. As a result if your doctor negligently turns you into an incompetent you have a maximum of three years to file your complaint against-him but if your attorney negligently fails to have this done, take your time in suing him. (Code Civ. Proc., § 352.) That legislative value judgment is not reviewed here.
The petition of real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 20, 1981.