Smith v. Kern County Land Co.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: SPENCE; GIBSON; McCOMB; TRAYNOR
• Citation: 51 Cal.2d 205,331 P.2d 645
• Parties: William V. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 24608.
• Decision Date: 14 November 1958

Page 645

331 P.2d 645 51 Cal.2d 205 William V. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant and Respondent. L. A. 24608. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Nov. 14, 1958.

Page 646

[51 Cal.2d 206] Oscar F. Catalano, Bakersfield, for appellant.

Borton, Petrini, Conron & Brown, P. R. Borton and R. D. Patterson, Jr., Bakersfield, for respondent.

SPENCE, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal in an action for damages for personal injuries. Defendant's general and special demurrer to the first amended complaint had been sustained with leave to amend, but plaintiff elected to stand on his pleading.

The principal question is whether the amended complaint stated a cause of action or, more precisely, whether plaintiff sufficiently alleged his status as an invitee. On appeal from a judgment entered on demurrer, the allegations of the complaint must be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties (Code Civ.Proc. § 452), [51 Cal.2d 207] the complaint must be reasonably interpreted and read as whole, and any defects therein which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties should be disregarded. Code Civ.Proc. § 475; see Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 42, 172 P.2d 867; Schaefer v. Berinstein, 140 Cal.App.2d 278, 288, 295 P.2d 113; Toney

Page 647

v. Security First Nat. Bank, 108 Cal.App.2d 161, 167, 238 P.2d 645; Gerritt v. Fullerton Union High School Dist., 24 Cal.App.2d 482, 486, 75 P.2d 627. In line with these rules, we have concluded that plaintiff's pleading stated a cause of action against defendant.

The amended complaint alleged that plaintiff, a county employee, was using heavy excavating equipment on defendant's property to remove certain trees, roots, and stumps. The trees grew on a right-of-way owned by the county; the roots extended into defendant's adjoining property. On defendant's land, a blade on plaintiff's equipment struck a buried pipeline containing highly combustible fluids. In the resulting explosion, plaintiff was injured. He alleged that the proximate cause of the injury was defendant's negligent failure to advise the county and its employees of the presence of the pipeline or of the dangerous substances it carried.

The amended complaint further alleged that defendant and the county 'desired and wished' the trees, roots, and stumps to be removed, and that several days before the accident defendant 'gave permission' to the county and its employees to enter upon the land for that purpose.

Defendant claims that the complaint shows only that plaintiff was a licensee, 'a person whose presence is not invited but merely tolerated.' Laidlaw v. Perozzi, 130 Cal.App.2d 169, 171, 278 P.2d 523, 524. In particular, it relies on Fisher v. General Petroleum Corp., 123 Cal.App.2d 770, 267 P.2d 841, 845, which it claims involved an identical factual situation. In the Fisher case, plaintiff's decedent was injured when the blade of his bulldozer struck a buried bull plug attached to a pipeline containing combustible fluids. Defendant had given a...