How have courts interpreted the statute of limitations for an action that was brought by a plaintiff as a result of negligence?

The first case to confront this problem was Gomez v. Valley View Sanitorium (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 507, 151 Cal.Rptr. 97. In that case, the cause of action accrued on February 5, 1976; plaintiffs served their notice of intent to sue on November 26, 1976 and filed their complaint on March 28, 1977. The court found plaintiffs' complaint timely, reasoning: "Because Code of Civil Procedure section 364 prohibits the commencement of an action until 90 days have expired ..., that 90-day period must be excluded when calculating the applicable statute of limitations. Where section 364 also operates to extend the period of limitations because notice is served within 90 days of the expiration of the statute, the plaintiff is entitled to that extension as well as the tolling of the statute during the 90 days plaintiff is prohibited from filing his action." (Id., at p. 510, 151 Cal.Rptr. 97.)

Braham v. Sorenson (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 367, 174 Cal.Rptr. 37, interpreted the statutes differently. The court found section 364, subdivision (a) and 356 together add 90 days to the basic statute of limitations; thus, the complaint, which was filed 119 days after service of the notice of intent to sue and 112 days after accrual of

Page 357