The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-12-04
ARE NOT LIABLE.
The Regents of the State
University.
Decided by the Supreme Court That
They Are a Corporate Body, and
Are Not Public Officers.

The Supreme Court decides that the Regen S
OF the University of California are corporate
body. aud hat as they are not public officers
they are not individually liable for errors COM
mitted by reason of negligence or other cause
This is decided By the court reversing the de-
cison Of the lower court in the case of Isaac
Lundy OF al versus D. NJ. Delmas ct al. Fol-
lowing are the particulars:
The plaintiffs brought this action against the
defendants, who wera sixteen OF the Regents of
the University OF California to recover dam
ages agansI them, in their individual capacity,
for the death of Daniel Lundy, the plaintiffs
father.
The complaint alleged that the defendants, as
regents of the unveIs SHY. caused Telephone
and telegraph line 10 be constructed from San
Jose 10 The LICK Observatory, on Mount Ham,
iitoU, aud $50 negligently maintained said line
that by culpabIe n gligence they allowed divers
poles thereof 10 rot and decay away aud 10 fail
10 the ground by reason OF their rotten condi-
tiOu." Lundy one day got caught In a fallen
wire was instantly Killed. and his heirs sued
IN regents of the university. A verdict for
$4,000 was obtained, from which the de-
PENDANTS appealed.
At the conclusion OF the plaintiffs evidence
on the first rial the defendants moved for a
nOnSuit on the grounds. First, that the regents
OF The University OF California constitute cor
pOratOG and that The said corporation was
alone responsible for any negligence Ia the per-
formance OF lis duty; SECOND. that The action
being based on negligence Il was necessary for
the plaintiffs TO show negligence Oh the nart of
the defendants, but thai there was no evidence
OF such negligence. The Supreme Court now
decides that this motion for a nonSuIt, denied
by The lower court, ought 10 have been granted.
The Incorporation OF the Regents of the Uni.
versiIy of California by an act of the Legisla-
lure, created 1868, is first rected by the court
iii arriving at This conclusion. " / he first ques-
ton is" says the court, Ibid the Regents, uu-
der the provisions of the organic act and the
steps taken TO incorporate, become a corpora
ton? We think this question must be
answered in the affirmative
This being so, the only remaining question
is, were The defendants individually liable for
the damages sustained by plaintiffs by rraSon
of the death OF their father? The rule I'M
dOubiediy is that public officers are answer
able in damages 10 any one specially injured
by their neglect or omission TO perform the
duties of their offices. But The defendants
Her- not pnbic officers. The act OF March %.
1868, declared that 10 member CT the Board
of Regents should be deemed public officer
by virtue OF his membership. and the provision
OF the Political Co e. naming the Regents as
civil executive officrrs.' was in effect abro-
gated by the constitutional provision above
quoted"
In This manner the Supreme Court decides
that the Regents cannot be held individually
responsible, and The judgment OF the lower
court Is therefore reversed.