Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Cal. 113

Sherbourne v. Yuba Cty.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1862

California Supreme Court · decided 1862-07-01

The complaint avers that on the seventeenth day of April, 1860, plaintiff, while a resident of Yuba County, had his leg broken by an accidental fall, and that being an indigent person he applied as . such for admission to the County Hospital of said county, and was in due form admitted thereto as a patient; that during his stay in the hospital he was not furnished with sufficient food, and such as he did receive was unwholesome; that the bed furnished him was filthy and…

Relies on Fowle v. Common Council ot Alexandria

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 1961 · most notably 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District (1961), Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd (1888)

1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions — followed in 16 states

7018621870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

¶2The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover compensation from the county of Yuba for the damage which he sustained by reason . of the unskillful treatment he received from the Resident Physician, and the insufficient and unwholesome food and other necessaries sup- 6 plied him while in the County Hospital as an indigent sick person.

¶3A demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the Court below, and from the judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

¶4The plaintiff insists that the county is required by law to provide for its indigent sick in a suitable manner, and is liable to an action for the misfeasance of its employés. No case has been cited to us in which such an action has been sustained; nor do we think this action can be sustained upon principle. Private corporations and *115municipal corporations may be liable for the acts of their employes, of whom they have the appointment and supervision, and when the duty to be performed is for the benefit of the corporation. But a quasi corporation, like a county, is not liable for the acts of officers or employés which it appoints in the exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the State, by the requirements of a public law, and simply for the public benefit, and for a purpose from which the county, as a corporation, derives no benefit. (Fowle v. The Common Council of Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398; The Mayor, etc., of N. Y. v. Bailey, 3 Hill, 531, and cases cited by Senator Hand at pp. 447, 448.)

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/21/cal/113 · .json · Public domain