Whiteford v. Yuba City Union High School District
Before: Preston
PRESTON, P. J.
Oscar Whiteford, a minor, brought this action through his guardian
ad litem
against the Yuba City Union High School District for damages for personal injuries received by him at the hands of students of said school district, which resulted in the loss of his left eye.
The complaint alleges: “That on the 8th day of November, 1930, in the night time, the principal and members of the Board of Trustees directed the students of the school to hold a rally on the school premises and instructed the students to take upon the school premises rubbish and missiles, including Osage oranges; that the students in the presence of the school authorities were permitted to throw these missiles at passers-by; that plaintiff was riding in an automobile on the public highway and one of the oranges, thrown by the students, struck-the windshield, shattered the glass, and as a result thereof plaintiff’s left eye was injured, and became blind.” The prayer is for damages on account of this injury in the sum of $20,250.
To this complaint the defendant school district interposed a general demurrer. This demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment of dismissal was thereupon entered. From this judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The liability of the school district is the only question to be determined. Appellant contends that the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the school district under section 2 of chapter 328, Statutes of 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 675). Section 2 of said chapter reads:
“Counties, municipalities and school districts shall be liable for injuries to persons and property resulting from the dangerous or defective condition of public streets, highways,
[464]
buildings, grounds, works and property in all eases where the governing or managing board of such county, municipality, school district, or other board, officer or person having authority to remedy such condition, had knowledge or notice of the defective or dangerous condition of any such street, highway, building, grounds, works or property and failed or neglected, for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice, to remedy such condition or failed of neglected for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice to take such action as may be reasonably necessary to protect the public against such dangerous or defective condition.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)