Smith v. Superior Court

Opinion

PARAS, J.

This is a petition for peremptory writ of mandate (or prohibition) to require the respondent Superior Court of Siskiyou County to afford petitioner a jury trial.

[979]

The State of California, acting through the Department of Transportation (hereinafter plaintiff), brought suit in the small claims division of the Yreka Judicial District against petitioner (hereinafter defendant), seeking the sum of $491.90 damages to a road sign allegedly caused by defendant’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Following trial, judgment was entered for plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the superior court, where she requested trial by jury. The request was denied

1

because “[t]he matter of appeals to superior court does not involve a jury trial.” We sustain the petition.

It is (and since 1879 has been) provided in the California Constitution, article I, section 16 (formerly § 7), that “[t]rial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all. . . .” Since 1872, Code of Civil Procedure section 592 has provided that “[i]n actions for the recovery of specific, real, or personal property, with or without damages, or for money claimed as due upon contract, or as damages for breach of contract, or

for injuries,

an issue of fact must be tried by a jury, unless a juiy trial is waived,. . .” (Italics added.)

With particular reference to the small claims court, the statutes provide that a defendant who has not sought any affirmative relief therein may appeal an adverse judgment to the superior court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 117.8)

2

On such an appeal “. . . the action shall be tried anew,” according to rules of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 117.10.) The Judicial Council rule provides that a trial on an appeal from a small claims court “. . . shall be conducted pursuant to law and rules in all respects as other trials in the superior court. . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 155.) Such rule provides for a juiy in “other trials” involving the subject matter of the case before us. It follows that petitioner is entitled to a jury.