I made a mistake in filing Small Claims case, is it fixable or not?

Long story short I was hit by a driver in traffic who was making an unlawful left-hand turn without yielding to traffic (me). A few thousand $$$ in damage. No one was injured, just property damage. I filed a claim with her insurance but it turned out her policy had expired. The policy card she presented had her father's name on it (driver herself was 26). So I started to prepare to sue in small claims (my policy didn't cover it). I mailed in a request form to the California DMV to get the ownership record of the car she was driving, which showed two owners--the driver, and *her mother*. This is where I made the mistake. When I filled out the court forms to sue both owners (under section 17150 of the California Vehicle Code), I very mistakenly listed her *father* as co-defendant, *not the mother*. Her father was on her *insurance card*, but I got it mixed up and named the father as co-defendant instead of the mother. I can't believe I did this.

I filed the case last month right before the three-year statute of limitations ran out. The trial is this week. That's right, I just discovered the mistake a couple days ago, while reviewing the evidence.

An attorney told me that I can request a continuance at the trial in order to correctly name and add the second defendant, BUT, and this is my question: is it too late for me to add the mother as a defendant, given that the statute of limitations has expired? It was an honest, genuine mistake.

And does it/could it make any difference is they all live in the same household? In that case, obviously the mother would have known about the case all along (presumably). I know that the driver & her father live at the same address, but not sure about the mother. I don't know if it makes any difference or not. Does the judge have discretion in circumstances like this?

I can still proceed with suing the driver at least, but I was hoping to ensnare the car's co-owner to increase my chances of getting paid.

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. That means that the defendant has to raise the defense and move for dismissal.

You can amend your complaint and serve the mother and take the chance that she won't raise the SOL as a defense.

However, before you delay the proceedings, ask yourself why you want to sue the mother. Just because she was on the title of the car doesn't mean that she is liable for your damage.

For the mother (and/or the father) to be liable you must prove, with evidence not sayso, that negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle occurred.

The CA jury instructions CACI 724 explains the elements.


The parent(s) must have knowledge that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle.

Just because the driver caused an accident also doesn't mean that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle.

The driver is an adult age 26. Humans are susceptible to errors that cause auto accidents without being incompetent or unfit to drive.

You have a very high burden to show evidence of the driver's incompetence or unfitness and the parent(s) knowledge of same.

So section 17150 of the California Vehicle Code doesn't apply? What purpose does it serve then? It states:
"Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for death or injury to person or property resulting from negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the owner".

If the driver cut me off whilst making an illegal turn onto a road from a parking lot, to me that's a negligent act. Assuming the judge believes that that is in fact what occurred, which it is. And "omission", well, the driver failed to have insurance. So the way I read that is, it was the responsibility of each owner to ensure that the other was properly insured to lawfully drive the car, given that each was liable for a negligent act, and causing damage while driving uninsured was negligent (would be my position). Or maybe just DRIVING uninsured could be deemed negligent. That's in addition to making a turn negligently (failure to yield) which caused damage.

I'm going by the plain meaning of the text as I read it: "Every owner...is liable and responsible for...injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or wrongful act *or omission* in the operation of the motor vehicle..."

Then I come to the last part which states "with the permission, express or implied, of the owner". So, that seems to imply the person who caused damage is not an owner. I don't know if a judge would rule that the other owner had a responsibility to ensure that her daughter, the other owner, was insured to drive the car? I see your point about it being a high bar. But I can also see how a judge might rule that either party is responsible for ANYONE who operates the car in negligent manner that causes damage. Now I see how legal arguments can be parsed out. And I'm not sure I'd have the bandwidth to take it that far.

adjusterjack said:

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. That means that the defendant has to raise the defense and move for dismissal.

You can amend your complaint and serve the mother and take the chance that she won't raise the SOL as a defense.

However, before you delay the proceedings, ask yourself why you want to sue the mother. Just because she was on the title of the car doesn't mean that she is liable for your damage.

For the mother (and/or the father) to be liable you must prove, with evidence not sayso, that negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle occurred.

The CA jury instructions CACI 724 explains the elements.

CACI No. 724. Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle

Justia - California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2024) 724. Negligent Entrustment of Motor Vehicle - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More

www.justia.com

The parent(s) must have knowledge that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle.

Just because the driver caused an accident also doesn't mean that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive the vehicle.

The driver is an adult age 26. Humans are susceptible to errors that cause auto accidents without being incompetent or unfit to drive.

You have a very high burden to show evidence of the driver's incompetence or unfitness and the parent(s) knowledge of same.

Click to expand...

Upon pondering it further, it seems clear that the law was written to apply to non-owner operators, ie someone who was merely authorized. And by definition, a co-owner doesn't need anyone's authorization to drive a car that they co-own. So maybe I jumped the gun in the first place, and my question should have been "Does a vehicle's co-owner have any responsibility for an accident caused by the other owner..."

Good point. Makes me wonder if negligent entrustment with regard to the mother might also not apply, though it's likely to apply to the father.

There is a site called Google Scholar where you can look up appellate case decisions for interpretations of laws and legal doctrines.

Do a search for negligent entrustment and a separate search for CVC17150.


Understand, though, that you'll be in small claims court. You won't be given much time to state your case.

It probably won't matter as long as you listed the driver as defendant who can testify as to who the owner/s are.

welkin said:

It probably won't matter as long as you listed the driver as defendant who can testify as to who the owner/s are.

Click to expand...

It sure can matter in that failing to name the mother as a defendant would preclude the OP from receiving a judgment against the mother.

Scott7 said:

is it too late for me to add the mother as a defendant, given that the statute of limitations has expired?

Click to expand...

No. You preserved the SOL by filing in time.

Scott7 said:

does it/could it make any difference is they all live in the same household?

Click to expand...

No.