BETTENCOURT v. CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY (1954)

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

BETTENCOURT v. CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY et al.

Civ. 15755.

Decided: February 04, 1954

Jacobsen & Tobin, San Francisco, for appellant. Ropers & Majeski, Redwood City, Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., John E. Fourt, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert E. Reed, Harry S. Fenton, Sacramento, for respondent.

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 of California, Cal.App., 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 for negligence the agencies likewise are immune. Fowler v. California Toll-Bridge Authority, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 299; Talley v. Northern San Diego County 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.

BRAY, Justice.

PETERS, P. J., and FRED B. WOOD, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network