Madison v. City & County of San Francisco
| Decision Date | 19 October 1951 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | MADISON v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. Civ. 14410. |
Hearing denied.
While voting to grant a petition for hearing in the Supreme Court after decision by a District Court of Appeal is ordinarily sufficient to indicate my disapproval of the holding of the intermediate appellate court, in this case I deem it advisable briefly to state my reason for so voting.
There can be no doubt but that both the majority and concurring opinions of the District Court of Appeal, 234 P.2d 995, followed the rule which has been heretofore announced in cases of this character by the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal of this state. This rule is based upon the old outmoded and outgrown maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong," or the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This had its origin in medieval English theory and was introduced in this country without sufficient understanding. Government Liability in Tort, Borchard, 34 Y.L.R. 1. It has been pointed out that what the maxim really meant was that the King was privileged to do no wrong--that if his acts were against the law--they were wrongs--not that he should be immune from the consequences of his unlawful acts. However that may be, there was never any reason for its incorporation into the law of this country where democracy exists and where we are said to have a "government of the people, by the people and for the people." It requires but a slight appreciation of the facts to realize that in Anglo-American law the individual citizen is left to bear almost all the risks of a defective, negligent, perverse or erroneous administration of the state's functions--an unjust burden--which is becoming graver and more frequent as the government's activities become more diversified and as we leave to administrative officers in even greater degree the determination of the legal relations of the individual citizen. The government obviously cannot insure the citizen against all defects and errors in administration, but there is no reason why the most flagrant of the injuries wrongfully sustained by the citizen, those arising from the torts of the officers, should be allowed to rest as they now generally do, in practice, if not in theory, at the door of the unfortunate citizen alone.
I can not follow the reasoning that a county or municipality in operating a hospital, where a charge is made to a patient for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City and County of Denver v. Madison
...of Peters, P. J. and the dissent of Carter, J. in Madison v. City and County of San Francisco, 106 Cal.App.2d 232, 253, 234 P.2d 995, 236 P.2d 141. This Court has repudiated the doctrine of sovereign immunity in actions sounding in contract. Colorado Racing Commission v. Brush Racing Ass'n,......
-
Hardy v. Vial
...698, 277 P.2d 19; dissenting opinion on denial of hearing, Madison v. City & County of San Francisco, 106 Cal.App.2d 232, 234 P.2d 995, 236 P.2d 141) a majority of this court had not reached the peak of injustice that it has reached in the case at In my dissent in the Talley case, supra, 41......
-
Diamond International Corp. v. Boas
...Cal.2d 569, 575, 577-578 & 576-577, 170 P.2d 904. Cf. Madison v. City & County of S. F. (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 232, 239-240, 234 P.2d 995, 236 P.2d 141.) We return again to the amendment of section 3.201 (former § 60) in 1976. Does the language "except as otherwise provided in section 9.102 ......
-
Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist.
...623, 625(1), 333 P.2d 789 (hearing denied): Madison v. City and County of S. F. (1951), 106 Cal.App.2d 232, 244-245, 234 P.2d 995, 236 P.2d 141 (hearing denied); Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital (1951), 104 Cal.App.2d 336, 337(1), 231 P.2d 513 (hearing denied).2 The scope of this prono......