Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital

• Decision Date: 21 May 1951
• Citation: 104 Cal.App.2d 336,231 P.2d 513
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LATHAM v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOSPITAL et al. Civ. 14747.

Page 513

231 P.2d 513

104 Cal.App.2d 336

LATHAM v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOSPITAL et al.

Civ. 14747.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

May 21, 1951.

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1951.

Hearing Denied July 19, 1951.

Emmett R. Burns, Edward A. Friend, San Francisco, for appellant.

Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Howard W. Campen, County Counsel of Santa Clara County, San Jose, for respondents.

DOOLING, Justice.

This appeal presents a question in the field of governmental liability for tort. That the law on the general subject, both by legislative and judicial action, is being extended in favor of such liability needs no elaboration. See the excellent discussion of the subject in People v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.2d 754, 756-762, 178 P.2d 1. The tendency both by legislation and judicial decision has been to enlarge the field of governmental liability. Nevertheless in this case we feel constrained both by the precedent of earlier decisions in the particular area of governmental activity involved and by reason of the legislative action in enacting section 203.5, Welfare and Institutions Code, in 1947, Stats. 1947, p. 2974, to hold once again that there can be no liability imposed upon a county or its board of supervisors for negligent injury incurred by any patient in a county hospital.

The earliest decision on the subject in this state is Sherbourne v. Yuba County, 21 Cal. 113. This was followed, in point of time by Davie v. Board of Regents, etc., 66 Cal.App. 693, 227 P. 243. The Sherbourne case held that in caring for an indigent in a county hospital the county was performing a governmental function and could not be held liable for tortious injury to the patient. The Davie case applied the same rule to the University of California in a case in which a student was tortiously injured while a patient in the university infirmary.

Next in point of time comes Goodall v. Brite, 11 Cal.App.2d 540, 54 P.2d 510. Not a tort case, this was a taxpayer's action to enjoin the county board of supervisors from admitting certain classes of patients to the county hospital. In that case the court held that the county hospital might legally only receive patients who by reason of inability to pay the rates charged at private hospitals in the vicinity might be deprived of hospitalization if they were not treated in the county hospital. The court expressly reserved the question of the right to receive patients into a county hospital without regard to ability to pay where there were no other hospital facilities 'within a reasonable distance'. 11 Cal.App.2d at page 543, 54 P.2d at page 512.

In Calkins v. Newton, 36 Cal.App.2d 262, 97 P.2d 523, a tort case, the complaint expressly alleged that there were no other hospital facilities in the county, that plaintiff had entered the county hospital as a paying patient and that the hospital was operated at a profit. The court, in holding that no cause of action was stated against the county, first decided the question left open in the case of Goodall v. Brite, supra, saying (after referring to the allegation that no other hospital facilities were available in the vicinity): 'Under such circumstances it is proper for the county to furnish the service to such persons * * * because they are in the same situation as the indigent sick in that they cannot obtain the care they need regardless of their ability to pay for it. * * * Such powers, so exercised, are governmental in their character.' 36 Cal.App.2d at page 266, 97 P.2d at page 525.

The court concluded that under the statutory provisions governing the operation of county hospitals in California such hospitals cannot legally be operated in a proprietary capacity, saying:

'In view of these decisions we are not inclined to hold that liability for negligence might not exist as against a county if the legislature empowered it to engage in the hospital business * * *. But we do not find such authority in the laws which relate to county hospitals in this state. Here, the operation of the hospital is governmental. * * *

'The imposition of a charge for service is not inconsistent with the exercise of a governmental function. (Citing cases.) Nor is the fact that the county general hospital was operated at a profit controlling. A county is authorized only to furnish hospitalization to those persons within the county who cannot secure it elsewhere. The county can charge only the cost of the service. The board of supervisors has not the power, merely by disregarding the limitations in the law, to admit patients who are not entitled to the service or to charge the persons who should have the service an excessive fee. A governmental agency does not incur liability for negligence by doing an act which is ultra vires.' 36 Cal.App.2d at pages 267-268, 97 P.2d at page 526.

The same principle was again announced in Griffin v. County of Colusa, 44 Cal.App.2d 915, 113 P.2d 270. In all three of the last cited cases a hearing was denied...