Lambert v. Mandel's of Cal.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1957
• Citation: 156 Cal.App.2d Supp. 855,319 P.2d 469
• Parties: 156 Cal.App.2d Supp. 855 Virginia LAMBERT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MANDEL'S OF CALIFORNIA, etc., Defendant and Respondent. C. A. 9407. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California
• Court: California Superior Court

Page 469

319 P.2d 469

156 Cal.App.2d Supp. 855

Virginia LAMBERT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MANDEL'S OF CALIFORNIA, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

C. A. 9407.

Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California.

Dec. 13, 1957.

Samuel C. McMorris, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Milton Fenton, Los Angeles, for respondent.

BISHOP, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs complained because the defendant, operating stores where shoes were retailed, refused to serve the plaintiffs when they sought to buy shoes, the refusal being, as alleged, solely because of the fact that the plaintiffs were members of the Negro race. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained without leave to amend. We are reversing the judgment of dismissal that followed, for we have concluded that the demurrer should have been overruled.

We need seek to further than section 51, of the Civil Code, and the cases interpreting it, for the applicable public policy of this state. That section reads: 'All citizens within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, restaurants, hotels, eating houses, places where ice cream or soft drinks of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, barber shops, bath houses, theaters, skating rinks, public conveyances and all other places of public accommodation or amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to all citizens.' Section 52, Civil Code, declares that a citizen denied any privilege vouchsafed by section 51, has an action for damages.

As a store retailing shoes is not one of the enterprises expressly mentioned in the section, and it obviously is not a place of amusement, our problem narrows down to this: Is a shoe store one of the 'all other places of public accommodation'? The section is to be given a liberal, not a strict, construction (see Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 1947, 30 Cal.2d 110, 113, 180 P.2d 321, 322-323, 171 A.L.R. 913). In Evans v. Fong Poy, 1941, 42 Cal.App.2d 320, 321, 108 P.2d 942, 943, the words we have quoted above in this paragraph were given emphasis and the court declared: 'Such sweeping language as that italicized obviously covers public bars or saloons.' This sweeping language does not cover 'all places', however. In Long v. Mountain View Cemetery Ass'n, 1955, 130 Cal.App.2d 328, 329, 278 P.2d 945, 946, it was held not to cover a mausoleum, one of three, operated by the defendant, the one set aside for the exclusive use of members of the Caucasian race. In reaching this conclusion the court recognized that 'The settled rule of law is that the expression 'all other places' means all other places of a like nature to those...