Lattin v. Coachella Valley County Water District

GIBSON, C. J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for the wrongful death of their son. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings; the motion was granted, and plaintiffs have appealed from the ensuing judgment, which was entered on May 10, I960.

1

The allegations of the complaint may be summarized as follows: Defendant, a county water district, supervised and controlled the Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal together with certain syphons which were a part of the canal. Plaintiffs’ son slipped on the embankment of the canal and was sucked into a syphon where he was trapped and drowned. The canal and its syphons constituted a dangerous and defective condition of which defendant was aware. It knew that the premises were used by the public for campsites and picnics, but it failed to take steps to remedy the dangerous condition or adequately safeguard the public from it. A claim duly filed with the district was rejected.

Plaintiffs contend that the immunity of a county water district for damages for injuries caused by the dangerous and defective condition of property under its control was abrogated by the enactment in 1945 of statutes later codified as sections 31083-31090 of the Water Code. We do not agree.

The sections relied on relate principally to the filing of

[501]

claims.

2

Section 31089 of the Water Code provides that nothing in sections 31083-31088, inclusive, shall be construed as creating any liability. Section 31090, the only other section relied on, provides that the district shall pay certain judgments rendered against its officers, agents, and employees, but the action before us is not brought against any such person. The sections of the Water Code relied on are in all material respects similar to sections 22725-22732 of that code which relate to irrigation districts, and in

Vater

v.

County of Glenn,

49 Cal.2d 815, 818 et seq. [323 P.2d 85], we held that the provisions applicable to irrigation districts, with the exception of the one relating to judgments against officers, agents, and employees, did not abrogate the rule of governmental immunity.