Grove v. San Joaquin County
| Decision Date | 17 January 1958 |
| Citation | 156 Cal.App.2d 808,320 P.2d 161 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ira Vergil GROVE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN and Archie Hill, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9241. |
Van Dyke & Shaw, Stockton, for appellant.
Honey, Mayall & Hurley, Stockton, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the County of San Joaquin entered after the court had sustained the defendant county's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. The appeal is taken on the judgment roll and concerns only the judgment for the county.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff sustained personal injuries while confined in the county jail of the County of San Joaquin as the proximate result of the negligence of the defendant county in that said county disregarded its duty to properly maintain and construct a jail so that it could safely accommodate the number of prisoners confined therein; that the county failed to supply personnel in sufficient number to properly supervise the number of men confined therein; that said condition has existed for several years, and that the jail was and is wholly inadequate for the confinement and occupancy of the prisoners confined therein; that said persons, including the plaintiff, were compelled to occupy cells under congested conditions rendering proper supervision and control virtually impossible with the number of agents placed therein by the county for the supervision and protection of the prisoners from each other and as a result of said failure to exercise its duties set forth therein, the plaintiff without provocation was attacked and beaten by a prisoner, the defendant, Archie Hill, resulting in serious and permanent injuries to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff's injuries could have been prevented had not the conditions mentioned existed. It is further alleged that the conditions mentioned were well known to the county for several years prior to the date of plaintiff's injury.
Appellant contends that a cause of action has been pleaded against the County of San Joaquin under section 53051 of the Government Code (formerly the Public Liability Act) which states:
In support of his contention that the county was liable under the provisions of said section of the Government Code, appellant relies heavily upon Bauman v. City and County of San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 108 P.2d 989, and Huff v. Compton City Grammar School Dist., 92 Cal.App. 44, 267 P. 918, which held that a dangerous and defective condition of public property can be created by the use or general plan of operation of government property as well as by a structural defect in the property. Bot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winston v. United States
...(in banc) (state not liable for negligence of employees engaged in purely governmental functions); Grove v. County of San Joaquin, 156 Cal.App.2d 808, 320 P.2d 161 (Dist.Ct.App.1958); Collenburg v. County of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.2d 795, 310 P.2d 989 (Dist.Ct. App.1957); Bryant v. County......
-
Shabazz v. Beard
...were not due to any defective condition of public property, a jail, or any general plan of use in operating it"); Grove v. San Joaquin Cnty., 156 Cal.App.2d 808, 810 (1958) (dismissing prisoner complaint where "plaintiff's injuries were not due to any physical or defective condition of the ......
-
Twente v. Ellis Fischel State Cancer Hosp.
...or produced by physically dangerous conditions of and upon state property. Respondents again refer this court to Sykes, Hayes, Bryant, and Grove, supra. It serves no purpose to repeat what those authorities declare. In addition, however, this court is referred to the case of Farrell v. City......
-
Jones v. Czapkay
...dangerous and defective condition of San Mateo County's property and that of the city of Burlingame. See also Grove v. County of San Joaquin, 1958, 156 Cal.App.2d 808, 320 P.2d 161, where the plaintiff, beaten by other prisoners while he was confined in the county jail, contended that the c......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), §413 Biakania v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 161, §532 Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp ., 86 Ohio St. 395, 715 N.E. 2d 518 (1999), §593.2.1 Billiar v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. , 623 F. 2......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...defendant is resolved by weighing and balancing the six Biakanja factors. The court cited Biakania v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 161, which employed a checklist of factors to consider in assessing legal duty. Where there is no privity of contract between the parties, the det......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), §413 Biakania v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 161, §532 Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp ., 86 Ohio St. 395, 715 N.E. 2d 518 (1999), §593.2.1 Billiar v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. , 623 F. 2......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...defendant is resolved by weighing and balancing the six Biakanja factors. The court cited Biakania v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 161, which employed a checklist of factors to consider in assessing legal duty. Where there is no privity of contract between the parties, the det......