MUSKOPF v. CORNING HOSPITAL DISTRICT (1960)

By their complaint plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been suffered by Louisa C. Muskopf while a paying patient at the Corning Memorial Hospital operated by the Corning Hospital District. Defendant's general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and following plaintiffs' failure to amend, judgment was entered, and this appeal followed.

The sole issue presented is whether or not a hospital operated by a hospital district may be held liable for injuries to a paying patient allegedly received as the result of negligent treatment or care.

This is the fourth time that counsel for plaintiffs herein have presented the same question to this court. See County of Butte v. Superior Court, 178 Cal.App.2d 310, 2 Cal.Rptr. 913; Ingram v. County of Glenn, 177 Cal.App.2d 649, 2 Cal.Rptr. 304; and Durst v. County of Colusa, 166 Cal.App.2d 623, 333 P.2d 789. They concede that the issue raised in this proceeding is precisely the same as was raised in the Durst case but, as stated in their brief, ‘* * * respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the case law on the subject of sovereign immunity.’

In county of Butte v. Superior Court, supra, we cited Latham v. Santa Clara County Hospital, 104 Cal.App.2d 336, 231 P.2d 513, where a like situation was presented and quoted that portion of the opinion wherein the court noted that ‘* * * an intermediate appellate court must accept the settled law as it finds it.’ [178 Cal.App.2d 276, 2 Cal.Rptr. 914]. Since hearings in the Supreme Court were denied in each of the cases cited above, and since that court has not seen fit to change the rule as enunciated in Talley v. Northern San Diego Hosp. Dist., 41 Cal.2d 33, 257 P.2d 22, it necessarily follows that the order of the trial court was proper and must be sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

PEEK, Justice.

VAN DYKE, P. J., and SCHOTTKY, J., concur. Hearing granted; BRAY, J., pro tem., sitting in place of TRAYNOR, J.