Evans

Evans v. Dayton Hudson Corp.

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1066·234 Cal. App. 3d 49·285 Cal. Rptr. 550·91 Daily Journal DAR 11443·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7523
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1991D012226California1,520 words

Opinion

Opinion

Todd, J.

Jane Evans appeals from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer of Dayton Hudson doing business as Target Stores, Inc., (Dayton Hudson) to the second amended complaint filed by her and her husband. The question presented is whether the spouse of an injured person who receives advance payments under Insurance Code section 11583 is entitled to rely on the statutory tolling provision of section 11583 with respect to a cause of action for loss of consortium. We conclude the answer is no and affirm the judgment.

Facts

Because a demurrer admits all material facts properly pled (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ]), the following facts are taken from the second amended complaint.

On July 18, 1988, David Evans, the husband of Jane Evans, slipped and fell in the vicinity of the cafeteria in a Target Store after the store allowed a slippery substance to remain on the floor. David Evans sustained injuries as a result of the fall.

The insurance carrier for Dayton Hudson advised David Evans on August 10, 1988, that his medical bills pertaining to the injury would be paid on submission.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.