Guidi v. State
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | TRAYNOR; GIBSON |
| Citation | 262 P.2d 3,41 Cal.2d 623 |
| Parties | GUIDI v. STATE et al. S. F. 18818. |
| Decision Date | 23 October 1953 |
Page 3
v.
STATE et al.
Page 4
[41 Cal.2d 624] Remington Low, Clarence B. Knight and Sidney F. DeGoff, San Francisco, for appellant.
Dana, Bledsoe & Smith and Joseph W. Rogers, Jr., San Francisco, for respondents.
TRAYNOR, Justice.
Plaintiff Gino Guidi brought this action against the State of California, the State Agricultural Society, and several individual defendants, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained at the state fairgrounds in Sacramento. The trial court granted the motion of the state and the society for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that the state fair is operated in the state's governmental capacity and that the state and society are therefore immune from suit. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment in favor of the state and the society. 1 We have concluded that the defense of governmental immunity from liability for tort is not available to the state and the society, and that the judgment must therefore be reversed.
Plaintiff alleged in his complaint: Defendant State Agricultural Society plans, holds, and controls the state fair at Sacramento. At all relevant times, defendant Golden State Fire Works Company was the servant, agent, and employee of defendant State of California, and defendant Douglas Robb was the servant, agent, and employee of defendants L. D. Lockwood and Jane Doe Lockwood. On September 3, 1950, plaintiff paid for his admission to the state fair and entered the fairgrounds. The accident occurred while he was [41 Cal.2d 625] standing near the entrance to the horse show arena. In his first cause of action, he alleges that defendants State of California, State Agricultural Society, and Golden State Fire Works Company 'so carelessly and negligently controlled, operated, supervised and maintained the said Fairgrounds and the fire works exhibition at said Fair' that a certain horse, 'Murietta Surprise,' owned by defendants L. D. Lockwood and Jane Doe Lockwood, 'became frightened and was caused to, an it did, run into, knock down and trample the plaintiff,' causing severe personal injuries. The second cause of action follows the allegations of the first cause of action, and alleges in addition that defendants State of California and State Agricultural Society 'carelessly and negligently failed to maintain the safeguards to protect the public, including the
Page 5
plaintiff, from the animals stabled, exercised, led and ridden' in the vicinity of the horse arena, so that 'Murietta Surprise' was permitted and allowed to knock down and trample plaintiff. The third cause of action follows the allegations of the first cause of action, and alleges in addition that defendants L. D. Lockwood, Jane Doe Lockwood, and Douglas Robb 'so carelessly and negligently controlled and maintained' the horse that it became frightened and was caused and permitted to run into and trample plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged compliance with the claim statute. Gov.Code, § 16044.The state and its instrumentalities and subdivisions are not immune from liability for torts committed while engaged in proprietary or business activities. Gov.Code, § 16041; People v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.2d 754, 761-762, 178 P.2d 1; Muses v. Housing Authority, 83 Cal.App.2d 489, 502, 189 P.2d 305. In the present case, it appears from the complaint that one or both of two activities conducted by the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akins v. Sonoma County
...when it enters into activities which have for their purpose the amusement and entertainment of the public. (Guidi v. State of California, 41 Cal.2d 623, 627, 262 P.2d 3; Pianka v. State of California, 46 Cal.2d 208, 210, 293 P.2d 458; Chafor v. City of Long Beach, 174 Cal. 478, 489-490, 163......
-
Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...300 N.E.2d 154, supra; Woodhull v. Mayor, 150 N.Y. 450, 453, 44 N.E. 1038; Pianka v. State, 46 Cal.2d 208, 293 P.2d 458; Guidi v. State, 41 Cal.2d 623, 262 P.2d 3; Rhodes v. City of Palo Alto, 100 Cal.App.2d 336, 223 P.2d 639; City of Macon v. Powell, 133 Ga.App. 907, 213 S.E.2d 63; see Her......
-
Bame v. City of Del Mar, No. D034206.
...entities that put on events such as home and garden, gun and antique shows at the District's facilities. (See Guidi v. California (1953) 41 Cal.2d 623, 625-627, 262 P.2d 3 ["Governmental immunity ... turns on the nature of the particular activity that leads to the plaintiffs injury, not on ......
-
Bettencourt v. State
...The latest discussion concerning the difference between governmental and proprietary functions occurs in Guidi v. State of California, 41 Cal.2d 623, 262 P.2d 3, where the court considered most of the California cases on the subject, and held that the state, although possibly immune from ne......
-
Akins v. Sonoma County
...when it enters into activities which have for their purpose the amusement and entertainment of the public. (Guidi v. State of California, 41 Cal.2d 623, 627, 262 P.2d 3; Pianka v. State of California, 46 Cal.2d 208, 210, 293 P.2d 458; Chafor v. City of Long Beach, 174 Cal. 478, 489-490, 163......
-
Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
...300 N.E.2d 154, supra; Woodhull v. Mayor, 150 N.Y. 450, 453, 44 N.E. 1038; Pianka v. State, 46 Cal.2d 208, 293 P.2d 458; Guidi v. State, 41 Cal.2d 623, 262 P.2d 3; Rhodes v. City of Palo Alto, 100 Cal.App.2d 336, 223 P.2d 639; City of Macon v. Powell, 133 Ga.App. 907, 213 S.E.2d 63; see Her......
-
Bame v. City of Del Mar, No. D034206.
...entities that put on events such as home and garden, gun and antique shows at the District's facilities. (See Guidi v. California (1953) 41 Cal.2d 623, 625-627, 262 P.2d 3 ["Governmental immunity ... turns on the nature of the particular activity that leads to the plaintiffs injury, not on ......
-
Bettencourt v. State
...The latest discussion concerning the difference between governmental and proprietary functions occurs in Guidi v. State of California, 41 Cal.2d 623, 262 P.2d 3, where the court considered most of the California cases on the subject, and held that the state, although possibly immune from ne......