Hall v. University of Nevada, S.F. 22942

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Citation: 105 Cal.Rptr. 355,503 P.2d 1363,8 Cal.3d 522
• Decision Date: 21 December 1972
• Docket Number: S.F. 22942
• Parties: , 503 P.2d 1363, 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 Diane HALL, a minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA et al., Defendants and Respondents. In Bank

Page 355

105 Cal.Rptr. 355 8 Cal.3d 522, 503 P.2d 1363, 81 A.L.R.3d 1234 Diane HALL, a minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA et al., Defendants and Respondents. S.F. 22942. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Dec. 21, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.

Page 356

[503 P.2d 1364] [8 Cal.3d 523] Bostwick & Rowe and Everett P. Rowe, San Jose, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, Michael H. Ahrens, Michael R. Sheehan and Paul H. Cyril, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

PETERS, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order quashing service of summons and complaint on the defendants, University of Nevada, a corporation, and the State of Nevada.

Plaintiffs filed suit in the San Francisco Superior Court to recover damages for personal injuries alleging that the injuries resulted from a collision in California between their automobile and a car owned by the University and State of Nevada and operated by their agent acting within the scope of his agency. ¹

Service on the university and the state was made pursuant to section 17450 et seq. of the Vehicle Code which provide a method for service on nonresidents who have operated vehicles on the highways of this state, whose agents have done so, or who have consented to the use of their motor vehicles on our highways. With respect to accidents occurring in the state due to such use, the sections provide for service on the Director of Motor Vehicles and notice of service to the nonresident by registered mail.

[8 Cal.3d 524] The university and the state moved to quash service on the ground that California courts do not have jurisdiction over the State of Nevada and its governmental agencies. The motion was granted.

We have concluded that sister states who engage in activities within California are subject to our laws with respect to those activities and are subject to suit in California courts with respect to those activities. When the sister state enters into activities in this state, it is not exercising sovereign power over the citizens of this state and is not entitled to the benefits of the sovereign immunity doctrine as to those activities unless this state has conferred immunity by law or as a matter of comity.

This principle is illustrated by Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U.S. 184, 190 et seq., 84 S.Ct. 1207, 12 L.Ed.2d 233, involving the operation by a state of a railroad in interstate commerce. The court recognized the general rule that a state is immune from suit in federal court by its own citizens and citizens of another state. The court, however, applied an exception to the general rule and held that because it engaged in interstate commerce, the state was subject to the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 U.S.C. §§ 51--60) and could be sued under the act in the federal courts. The court, quoting from Maurice v. State of California, 43 Cal.App.2d 270, 275, 277, 110 P.2d 706, held that the state by engaging in interstate commerce by rail and thereby subjecting itself to the federal legislation must be deemed to have waived any right it may have had arising out of the general rule that a sovereign state may not be sued without its consent. ² (See also California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553, 568, 77 S.Ct. 1037, 1 L.Ed.2d 1034; United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 185, 56 S.Ct. 421, 80 L.Ed. 567.)

Page 357

[503 P.2d 1365] The principle has also been recognized in state decisions relating to other states. Thus, in People v. Streeper (1957) 12 Ill.2d 204, 145 N.E.2d 625, 629--630, an injunction proceeding was permitted with respect to property owned by one state in another state, and in State v. Holcomb (1911) 85 Kan. 178, 116 P. 251, 254, taxation by one state of property therein owned by another state was permitted. Each proceeding was brought in the state where the property was owned. As pointed out in Streeper, the 'sovereignty...