Hayes v. State of California

PIERCE, P. J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment following an order granting a motion by defendant State of California for judgment on the pleadings in a wrongful death action.

The question raised on appeal is the validity of the 1963 government tort liability legislation (Stats. 1963, ch.

[49]

1681; Gov. Code, §§ 810 et seq.) when applied to claims based upon casualties occurring

subsequent to

the California “moratorium” legislation (Stats. 1961, ch. 1404, adding Civ. Code, § 22.3). Denying appellants’ contentions, we hold that legislation attacked is constitutional as so applied.

The pleadings before the trial court when the appealed from judgment was entered were plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and the answer of the state thereto. The allegations of the complaint necessary to be mentioned here are these: that the-State of California issued to defendant Bil-Joy Inc. a permit to construct an approach road to U. S. Highway 50; that the approach road was constructed in a negligent manner, deviating from the plan authorized in the permit; that the State of California had actual or constructive knowledge of that fact but failed either to inspect or order correction of the improperly constructed road. It is then alleged that “On or about the 16th day of November, 1961, the defendants, Eugene Gillihan and Does VI through VIII, and each of them, so negligently entrusted, managed, maintained, drove and operated their motor vehicle along and upon said Highway U.S. 50 near Pierroz Boad as to proximately cause said motor vehicle to collide with the motor vehicle in which Lewis Park Hates [plaintiffs’ decedent] was riding.” It is then alleged that Hayes died of injuries received in said accident.

It will be noted that there is

no

allegation telling how any of the allegedly negligent acts of the State of California in permitting an approach road to be negligently constructed by defendant Bil-Jot Inc. were connected with the fatal accident. We were informed by counsel at oral argument that the operator of some vehicle using the “approach road” was an actor participating in some undisclosed manner with the negligent acts of Gillihan. Whatever this participation may have been there has been no contention either in the briefs of appellants or in their oral argument that any cause of action has been, or could be, pleaded against the State of California under the 1963 government tort liability legislation cited above. Actually it has not been made clear to us how it is contended that any cause of action had been or could be pleaded against the state upon any