Wadley v. Los Angeles County
Decision Date | 16 July 1962 |
Parties | Jack Russell WADLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 25879. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Everett, E. Demler and John R. Nimocks, Long Beach, for plaintiff and appellant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Los Angeles County, and Lloyd S. Davis, Deputy Counsel Counsel, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff was injured on May 11, 1960, when the motorcycle which he was riding allegedly struck a defect in a county highway causing plaintiff to sustain personal injuries. The complaint alleged filing of a claim with defendant County of Los Angeles on February 20, 1961, some nine months after the accident occurred. Defendant County of Los Angeles interposed a general demurrer to the complaint which was sustained by the court without leave to amend, upon the grounds the claim was not filed within one hundred days after the date of the accident as required by sections 710 and 715 of the Government Code. A judgment of dismissal was entered from which plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court, in the case of Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, 55 Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457, eliminated all governmental immunity from liability for tort from which it follows, plaintiff asserts, that statutes imposing the filing of claims as a prerequisite to suit are unconstitutional and void. Plaintiff argues that the claims requirements are dependent for their existence upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
First, it should be pointed out that in the Muskopf case, supra, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the doctrine of sovereign governmental immunity as established by court rule and governmental immunity established by statute. It asserted that the doctrine of governmental immunity was originally court-made and reviewed the many statutes wherein the State Legislature waived substantive immunity in certain areas. In fact, the argument was presented to the Supreme Court that the Legislature, having removed immunity in certain areas, has in effect retained it in all others and therefore the court was without the power to remove the immunity in the remaining areas not covered by legislative enactments. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Legislature had only intended to say (pp. 218-219, 11 Cal.Rptr. 93, 359 P.2d 461), Thus, what the court did in Muskopf, supra, was to declare that the immunity of public agencies for the torts of its agents, insofar as said immunity has been created by judicial action, is no longer of force and effect.
Section 6 of article XX of the State Constitution prescribes that suits may be brought against the state in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law. Sections 710 and 715 of the Government Code prescribe the manner in which and the time within which suits may be filed against a local public entity and require the filing of a written claim as a condition precedent to the filing of such suits.
The purposes of claims statutes have been recognized as valid in such cases as Hochfelder v. County of Los Angeles, 126 Cal.App.2d 370, p. 374, 272 P.2d 844, p. 847, where the court stated:
The cause of action upon which plaintiff proceeded in the case before us is based upon an alleged dangerous or defective condition of public property and is therefore governed by the provisions of the Public Liability Act of 1923 (Gov.Code, §§ 53050 et seq.).
Since the Muskopf decision (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., supra, 55 Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal.Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457) there have been a number of decisions of the District Court of Appeal holding that the provisions of the Public Liability Act of 1923 must be satisfied before a public agency can be held liable thereunder. (Akers v. City of Palo Alto, 194 Cal.App.2d 109, 122, 14 Cal.Rptr. 767; Ngim v. City & County of San Francisco, 193 Cal.App.2d 138, 144, 13 Cal.Rptr. 849; Kotronakis v. City & County of San Francisco, 192 Cal.App.2d 624, 631, 13 Cal.Rptr. 709.)
In the Kotronakis case, supra (192 Cal.App.2d 624, at 631, 13 Cal.Rptr. 709, at 713), the court declared:
. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gates v. Superior Court
... ... 32 Cal.App.4th 481 ... Daryl F. GATES et al., Petitioners, ... SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent ... Takeo HIRATA et al., Real Parties in Interest ... No. B083893 ... 524 [pre-Muskopf claim statute enacted under authority of former art. XX § , 6]; Wadley v. County of Los Angeles (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 668, 670, 23 Cal.Rptr. 154 [pre-Tort Claims Act ... ...
-
Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist.
...the public entity of potential liability so that it can better prepare for the upcoming fiscal year. (Wadley v. County of Los Angeles (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 668, 670, 23 Cal.Rptr. 154.) Counsel gave defendant actual notice that it might be sued when he phoned Bukey to request information abo......
-
Tammen v. San Diego County
...afford a proper subject for legislative classification.' These constitutional arguments were also rejected in Wadley v. County of Los Angeles, 205 Cal.App.2d 668, 672--673(4a, 4b), 23 Cal.Rptr. The order is affirmed insofar as it denied the petition of Marjorie Tammen and reversed as to the......
-
Carr v. State of California
...114 Cal.Rptr. 518; Bozaich v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 688, 699, 108 Cal.Rptr. 392; Wadley v. County of Los Angeles (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 668, 672--673, 23 Cal.Rptr. 154) we upheld the constitutionality of the claims statute on both grounds. We pointed out that where, as in ......