New frontiers in chutzpah (Gokey vs. Lodi)

From the weblog of Norman Geras (Normblog)

Gokey vs Lodi
You want an example of chutzpah. Here:

When a dump truck backed into Curtis Gokey's car, he decided to sue the city for damages.
Only thing is, he was the one driving the dump truck.
But that minor detail didn't stop Gokey, a Lodi city employee, from filing a $3,600 claim for the December accident, even after admitting the crash was his fault.

But what's the legal principle invalidating Gokey's claim?
Posted by Norm at 11:41 AM Permalink

[P.S. After Gokey's claim was denied, his wife Rhonda Gokey filed a claim for a larger amount, $4800. "I'm not as nice as my husband is," she said. --JW]

[P.P.S. My friend Robert Fishman points out that when it comes to chutzpah, Curtis & Rhonda Gokey are barely in the minor leagues. For one thing, filing a claim that covered only damage to the car was pathetic. Did Curtis Gokey get fired? If so, then the claim should at least include lost income, and probably funding for driver's education in addition. If not, then the Lodi city government is really guilty of culpable negligence, "letting a known car-crasher drive around in a city-owned dump truck." The Gokeys clearly lack imagination ... and a good lawyer. --JW]