What is the burden of reasonable diligence required by the California Court of Appeal to justify relief under the California Motor Vehicle Accident Relief Act?

The majority cites Black v. County of Los Angeles, supra, as requiring a strong showing of "reasonable diligence . . . for the purpose of discovering the facts" in order to justify relief. But that case must be seen in its proper perspective: plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident and promptly retained the services of an attorney. For nine months following the accident neither plaintiff nor her attorney bothered to obtain a copy of the Highway Patrol report which would have revealed the existence of a possible claim against the county, relying instead upon an inaccurate newspaper account of the accident. (12 Cal.App.3d at pp. 676-677, 91 Cal.Rptr. 104.) Since the facts conclusively showed that plaintiff's counsel failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the court quite properly concluded that the conduct was not one of a Reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. (Id., at p. 677, 91 Cal.Rptr. 104.) In the case at bar, there is a total lack of facts or circumstances which would prompt a reasonably prudent person to discover the existence of a cause of action against respondents within the 100-day period. The burden placed upon defendants by the majority is one they could not have possibly met under the facts of this case. The result is to frustrate the remedial purpose behind the relief statutes.