Hudson v. Nixon
| Decision Date | 26 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | S.F. 20913 |
| Citation | 370 P.2d 324,20 Cal.Rptr. 620,57 Cal.2d 482 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 370 P.2d 324 Charles R. HUDSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Murray F. NIXON et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Lackman & Lackman, Samuel Lackman and Lawrence H. Lackman, Long Beach, for defendants and appellants.
Kane & Canelo, Thomas J. Kane, Jr., Adolph B. Canelo, III, and Martin J. Rosen, Merced, for plaintiffs and respondents.
The trial court found that defendants, husband and wife, owners of various housing and rental units known as the Nixon Apartments, refused, in January 1960, to rent one of the units to plaintiffs, who are Negroes, solely because of their color and race. It was stipulated that the property constituted publicly assisted housing accommodations within the meaning of the Hawkins Act. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 35700-35741, added in 1959.) Defendants have appealed from a judgment awarding damages to plaintiffs.
Our decision in Burks v. Poppy Construction Company, ante, Cal., 20 Cal.Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313, is controlling with respect to the validity and application of the Hawkins Act.
The additional contention is made that the judgment against Mrs. Nixon is not supported by the evidence. The transaction with plaintiffs was handled by Mr. Nixon, who was 'personally running' the apartments at the time, and it may be inferred from the evidence that Mr. Nixon was acting not only for himself but also as agent for his wife. It is argued, however, that the Hawkins Act is penal in character and that Mrs. Nixon cannot be held liable for the wrong of her husband in the absence of evidence of personal fault. The act provides for the recovery of 'damages caused by (a violation of the act) in a sum of not less than five hundred dollars.' The provision is obviously one for compensatory damages and establishes a minimum amount to be awarded. (Cf. Prowd v. Gore, 57 Cal.App. 458, 462, 207 P. 490.) It is settled that a principal is liable for compensatory damages for the wrong committed by an agent in transacting the principal's business regardless of whether the wrong is authorized or ratified by the principal, and this rule applies even where the wrong is intentional and malicious. (Civ.Code, § 2338; Fields v. Sanders, 29 Cal.2d 834, 838 et seq., 180 P.2d 684, 172 A.L.R. 525; Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co., 28 Cal.2d 652, 654 et seq., 171 P.2d 5.)
The judgment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. Colangelo
...4 L.Ed.2d 1515, in Burks v. Poppy Const. Co., 57 A.C. 503, 515-516, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313, and in Hudson v. Nixon, 57 A.C. 523, 524, 20 Cal.Rptr. 620, 370 P.2d 324. The court in the Levitt case intimated (31 N.J. page 531, 158 A.2d 177) that a contention that there was a want of du......
-
Inland Mediation Bd. v. City of Pomona
...as U.S. v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 930 (7th Cir.1992) (owner held liable for actions of rental agent); and Hudson v. Nixon, 57 Cal.2d 482, 20 Cal.Rptr. 620, 370 P.2d 324 (1962) (wife held liable for co-owner husband's actions), in arguing that its relationship with Keagy was "entirely di......
-
Presbyterian Camp & Conference Ctrs., Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara Cnty.
...[relying on Civ. Code, § 2338 to incorporate the theory of respondeat superior into Civ. Code, § 789.3 ]; Hudson v. Nixon (1962) 57 Cal.2d 482, 484, 20 Cal.Rptr. 620, 370 P.2d 324 [same as to Health & Saf. Code, §§ 35700 – 35741 ]; Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 499......
-
Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A., B264947
...principal]” (Nuffer v. Insurance Co. of North America (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 349, 355, 45 Cal.Rptr. 918 ; Hudson v. Nixon (1962) 57 Cal.2d 482, 484, 20 Cal.Rptr. 620, 370 P.2d 324 ), and even if the wrong is criminal (Nuffer, at p. 355, 45 Cal.Rptr. 918 ); see generally Civ.Code, § 2338 ; or......