Balon

Dissenting.—The issue presented by this case is whether “forgetting” the name of the driver of a vehicle who causes a plaintiff injury amounts to genuine ignorance under the “Doe” amendment statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 474 (hereafter section 474).) The majority answers this question “Yes” and equates appellant’s claimed memory lapse of the clearly once known fact of the name of respondent as the driver who struck and caused her injury with the “real” lack of knowledge required by section 474. (Snoke v. Bolen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1427, 1432 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 ]; Munoz v. Purdy (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 942, 947 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) I would not do so and therefore respectfully dissent.

Respondent’s declaration in support of his motion to quash service of summons recited: “3. Immediately after the collision, I walked up to Deanna Balón’s vehicle and asked if she was alright. She stated that she was surprised that she had been in an accident but that she was not injured. She and I decided to go across the street to a doughnut shop at the corner of Broadway and 49th Street in Oakland to call the police and exchange *491 information, [fl 4. When we arrived at the doughnut shop, I…

Introduction

Appellant Deanna Balón appeals the trial court’s order granting respondent Shawn G. Hurley’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it found appellant did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 1 We agree, and therefore shall reverse.

Statement of the Facts and Case

On December 28, 1990, appellant was involved in a traffic collision with a vehicle driven by Shawn Hurley (hereinafter respondent), but owned by Ethel Drost. Immediately after the accident, appellant and respondent went to a nearby doughnut shop to call the police and exchange information.

Once inside the doughnut shop, respondent called the police and his girlfriend. Soon after, respondent’s girlfriend arrived; she saw respondent *486 give appellant a piece of paper with respondent’s name and other information on it. Appellant, however, felt dazed from the collision, and subsequently forgot about the slip of paper and respondent’s identity.

Appellant filed a claim with the owner’s insurance carrier, the California State Automobile Association (CSAA). Over the next several months, appellant attempted to work out a…

Appellant Deanna Balon appeals the trial court's order granting respondent Shawn G. Hurley's motion to quash service of summons and complaint. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it found appellant did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 474. [1] We agree, and therefore shall reverse.

On December 28, 1990, appellant was involved in a traffic collision with a vehicle driven by Shawn Hurley (hereinafter respondent), but owned by Ethel Drost. Immediately after the accident, appellant and respondent went to a nearby doughnut shop to call the police and exchange information.

Once inside the doughnut shop, respondent called the police and his girlfriend. Soon after, respondent's girlfriend arrived; she saw respondent give appellant a piece of paper with respondent's name and other information on it. Appellant, however, felt dazed from the collision, and subsequently forgot about the slip of paper and respondent's identity.

Appellant filed a claim with the owner's insurance carrier, the California State Automobile Association (CSAA). Over the next several months, appellant attempted to work out a settlement with CSAA. Appellant never asked…