gno.law

Bettencourt v. California Toll Bridge Authority

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 15755 · 1954-02-04 · Published · 123 Cal. App. 2d 943 · 266 P.2d 205 · 1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1281

GEORGE BETTENCOURT v. CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY

Area
civil
Panel
Absalom F. Bray (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Bray

BRAY, J.

Plaintiff appeals from judgments in favor of defendant California Toll Bridge Authority and defendant Department of Public Works sustaining demurrers without leave to amend to the complaint described in Bettencourt v. State, No. 15668, this day decided by us, ante, p. 60 [266 P.2d 201]. These appeals are companion appeals to the one there considered.

Defendants Toll Bridge Authority and Department of Public Works are agencies of the State of California. (Gov. Code, §§ 14000-14005; Sts. & Hy. Code, § 30000 et seq.) Such agencies are really the State of California and if the state is immune from claims of negligence the agencies likewise are immune. (Fowler v. California Toll Bridge Authority, 46 F.Supp. 299; Talley v. Northern San Diego Hosp. Dist., 41 Cal.2d 33 [257 P.2d 22].)

On the authority of the companion appeal to the effect that the State of California enjoys sovereign immunity as to claims for negligence in the operation of the Dumbarton Bridge, the judgments are affirmed.

Peters, P. J. and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by