What is the tolling of the statute of limitations for a third party lawsuit?

It is important to note that Baright did not involve the tolling of the statute of limitations for a third-party lawsuit; it only addressed the statute of limitations for legal malpractice. The court's conclusion that the statute was tolled as to the negligent attorney until the client discovered the legal malpractice is consistent with the conclusion in Gutierrez that where an [20 Cal.App.4th 743] attorney causes a delay in filing an action, it is the attorney, not the " 'innocent' defendant," who should be charged with the consequences. (Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 900, 218 Cal.Rptr. 313, 705 P.2d 886.) The same considerations are applicable to appellants' action against the soils engineer.

Appellants also rely on Leaf v. City of San Mateo, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 163 Cal.Rptr. 711. That was an action by homeowners against a municipality for property damage. The homeowners were aware of damage to their property as early as 1972, but were unable to ascertain that the damage was caused by uncompacted sewer trenches on or near their property until the occurrence of a cave-in in 1976. The court rejected the city's argument that the cause of action accrued when the property damage was discovered. The court held that it accrued when plaintiffs learned or should have learned that the city's negligence caused the damage.