Upton v. City of Antioch

DOOLING, J. Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendants city of Antioch, P. K. Biglow its superintendent of streets, B. H. Maynard its director of public works and city engineer, and Phil E. Minner its city manager. The action is based upon injuries alleged to have been suffered when an automobile struck a protruding pipe in a street under construction in the city of Antioch.

From the affidavits presented on the motion for summary judgment it appears that on May 14, 1956, by resolution the City Council of Antioch requested the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to appropriate $69,835 from the 1955-1956 Aid to Cities fund for the construction, purchase of right of way, and engineering costs for the improvement of a designated portion of Wilbur Avenue in said city, “the contract to be awarded by the Board of Supervisors, and the construction, engineering, and purchases of right of way to be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director of Contra Costa County.”

On May 15, 1956, the board of supervisors of said county adopted a resolution which, after reciting that “ (t)his Board deeming” said reconstruction of the designated part of Wilbur Avenue “ is of general county interest, ’ ’ ordered that such work is authorized at a cost of $69,835, “said reconstruction to be done by contract to be awarded by the Board of Supervisors and the construction, engineering, and purchase of right of way to be under the direction and supervision of the Public Works Director of Contra Costa County.”

Thereafter a contract was made by the county for this work with Antioch Paving Company and the work was being done by that company at the time the accident occurred.

[860]It is respondents’ theory upon which the trial court acted in granting summary judgment to the city and its officers that they cannot be responsible for the alleged dangerous condition of the street under construction since the county had assumed the entire control of the work and it was being done under county supervision by an independent contractor under contract with the county. Appellants counter with the argument that under the sections of the Streets and Highways Code under which these proceedings were undertaken there is no legal authority for the respondent city to relieve itself and its officers of their responsibility in the matter of the improvement of a city street.

The parties agree that the proceedings were taken under sections 1680-1683 of the Streets and Highways Code.