Alterauge v. Los Angeles Turf Club

MOORE, P. J.

Respondent sued for “wrongful arrest.” He was awarded $300 compensatory damages against all defendants, $2,000 exemplary damages against the corporation a,nd $750 against the latter’s agents. A motion for a new trial having been denied, the matter was transferred to this court on appeal.

The corporate defendant operates Santa Anita Park, a race track which engages in pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to the California Horse Racing Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 19400 et seq.) At the time herein mentioned the club employed the Security Service Agency, a copartnership composed of appellants Williams and Rhyn, who in turn employed appellants Marshall and Dietz to perform the actual service of policing the club’s grounds, including the placing of respondent under surveillance.

Respondent having paid for his admission to the clubhouse on January 5,1946, remained until the end of the seventh race. Then, feeling ill, he withdrew and seated himself in an automobile on the parking lot. He was there approached by Dietz and Marshall who stated to him that they were track detectives in the employ of the Turf Club and demanded to know the name of the owner of the automobile in which he sat. Upon his refusal to give the information, they requested him to accompany them to the inside of the clubhouse. He declined to do so saying that he preferred to remain in the car. “No,” said the two men, “you are going into the place, we have got to take you.” Thereupon they pulled him out, tearing his coat, and forced him to accompany them to the office of the clubhouse where he was searched for evidence of bookmaking. He was questioned by Messrs. Patton and Pugh, employees of Security Service, detained for about 15 minutes and then released with instructions never to return to the track.

In demanding a reversal, appellants contend that the evi

[737]

dence is insufficient to justify any verdict against them. They assert that under rule 355

*

of the Eacing Board it was their duty to police the grounds of the club and to eject therefrom known undesirables and persons of immoral character as well as others whose presence is forbidden by the rule; that in the performance of such duties they were privileged to detain respondent for a reasonable investigation by reason of the fact that his presence there was interfering with their valuable property right, to wit, their license to operate a track. Such contention they assert is based upon sections 19460 and 3 9461, Business and Professions Code, which provide that their club license might be suspended or revoked in the event that the Eacing Board should “believe that any condition of its license has not been complied with.”