Isom v. California Junior Republic

WOOD, Acting P. J.

The plaintiff, Charles Isom, a minor sixteen year of age suing by his guardian

ad

litem, recovered a judgment against defendant corporation, A. W. Minard, an employee of the corporation, and Roy Smylie for injuries which he suffered when he was pushed by Smylie into an empty cement swimming pool at the institution operated by the corporation defendant. His mother, Margaret A. Isom, also recovered a judgment for expenses incurred in caring for the minor’s injuries. The appeal is prosecuted from these judgments.

The trial court found that defendants Smylie and Minard were agents, servants and employees of defendant California Junior Republic; that defendant Smylie “carelessly, recklessly and willfully” pushed Charles Isom into the empty swimming pool; that defendant corporation was conducting at the time of the incident a charitable institution but that plaintiffs did not have any notice or knowledge that the corporation was conducting a charitable institution; that defendant corporation “did not exercise due care in the selection of defendant Roy Smylie as one of its servants, agents

[301]

or employees”. Defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings that Smylie was an agent or employee of the corporation.

For many years prior to the incident involved in this litigation defendant corporation had conducted as a public charity a farm for vocational training maintained in part by such funds as the parents of the inmates could provide and in part by various donations, bequests and payments received from community chests of various cities in the neighborhood of the farm. The institution, which cared for about one hundred twenty-five boys, received only those who were in need of twenty-four-hour supervision. Different tasks were assigned to the boys such as farm work and machine shop work. The boys could play during recreational periods, defendant Minard being employed by defendant corporation as athletic coach. The expense of keeping each boy in the institution ranged from fifty to fifty-five dollars per month, but it was not necessary for a boy to pay any sum whatever if he or his parents were not able to make payments. Those who were able to pay part of their expenses were required to do so. The mother of plaintiff Charles Isom paid the sum of twenty dollars per month and defendant Smylie paid the sum of ten dollars per month. The superintendent testified: ‘‘It is not a question of pay at all. It is a question of whether the boy needs twenty-four-hour supervision in order to make him a worth-while citizen, or whether he is to be loose on the street to be picked up and sent to the reform school.”