The record-union., 1896-05-16
THE MELVIN DAMAGE suit.
New Trial Granted the State by the
Superior Court
Now the Supreme Court Will
Determine the Final
Issue.

Judge Prewett Of Placer County yes
terday rendered his decision in the case
of E. w. Melvin against the State, on
the latter's application for new trial,
judgment having been awarded Melvin
for $4,000 damages because Of injur-
les received by the collapse Of row of
seats at Agricultural Park during the
State Fair races several years ago. The
decision is concurred in by Judge John
son, in whose department the matter
was heard.
Suits were first brought by Melvin
and others against the Directors of the
State Agricultural Society, but they
were non-suited. They then submitted
their claims to the Legislature, which
allowed various sums to the injured
parties. Some of these the Governor re-
duced, but Melvin refused to accept the
cut in his case and sued the State,
jury awarding him $4,000 damages.
The States attorneys claimed that
this was not a case in which the State
could be sued and demanded a new trial,
with the result stated above.
Melvin will appeal to the Supreme
Court against this ORDER and its deci-
sion will settle the matter Following is
THE DECISION.
In my opinion, the Court should, if it
were to deny the motion for new trial,
require the plaintiff as a condition of
such denial to remit all of its judgment
above the sum of $4,000 and costs.
But in my Judgment the evidence does
not show a legal liability against the
State.
Waving many Of the points discussed
by counsel in their very able and ex-
haustive briefs pro and con, it is suffi-
cient to say that the State is not, in its
capacity as sovereign, liable to any one
for damages growing cut of the negli-
gence of it's officers and agents.
This is a recognized principle of fun
damental law, but if it were at all
doubtful it is set at rest by several de-
cisions Of our own Supreme Court.
1 quote from Bourn VS.. Hart, % Cal,
327: THAT State Is not liable for the
negligence or misfeasance of its officers
or agents, except when such liability Is
voluntarily assumed by its Legislature,
Is said by Danforth, j., in Lewis vs.
State 96 N Y, IA, 4S Am. Rep. GOT, to
be so we'll settled upon grounds of pub
lie policy, and the doctrine is so uni
formly asserted by writer's of approved
authority and the courts, that fresh
discussions would be superfiuous. And
the Supreme Court of the United States
i'll Gibbon VS.. United States, . Wall, 269,
in an opinion delivered by Mr.. Justice
Miller, say: mo Government ever held
itself liable to individuals for the mis-
feasance, laches or any unauthorized
powers of its officers and agents"
Nor does the Act under which the ac-
ton is brought help the plaintiff In any
degree. 1 quote from Section l Of the
Act (Stats. 1898, p. sd: "All persons
who have claims against the State for
negligence are hereby authorized on the
terms and conditions herein contained
to bring suit thereon, etc"
Only those who have claims are en-
abled to bring actions. Sec says: In
case judgment is rendered for the plain
tiff in any such suit, it shall be for the
amount actually due from the State to
the plaintiff, etc. thus implying that
the actual liability is to be determined
elsewhere than in the statute itself.
The case above cited, SO Cal. 327,
quotes with approval the case of Clod-
felter VS.. State, so N. c.. 81, Al Am. Rep
suits only authorizes such suits as es-
tablish a liability other than that i'm
piled from the mere permission itself.
In that State a court was authorized
to hear claims against the State, and
the Supreme Court held that this pro-
vision only authorized suits to enforce
such claims as could be enforced against
the State if 1T, like one of it's own citi-
zens, were amenable to process. The
same case declares that the common
doctrine Of respondent superior applf-
cable to the relation Of principal and
agent as between other persons, does
not prevail against the sovereign in the
necessary employment Of public SER
wants.
The case in SO Cal. 327 is quite con-
elusive that an appropriation Of money
by the Legislature to pay a claim Of the
character of that alleged by the plain
tiff would be unconstitutional but for
one fact, which we will briefly notice.
1t is contended that the State was
! liable because it was engaged in a pri-
vate enterprise. 1t is a settled law
that if the State forsakes its sover-
eighty and engages in private business
it thereby becomes liable to all the ordi-
nary obligations of that relation, one
| Of which is responsibility for negli-
| gence.
| But in running the State Fair as a
! State institution the State was not en-
gagged in private business. 1t was and
! is essentially a great public institution
run and managed by the State to foster
the industrial and commercial interests
of it's people. and has no element of gain
| or private business in it.
| This point is fully and concisely met
| in the case of Daggett VS.. Colgan, 92
| Cal 56, where the court says:
- The defendant further contends
that the statute is unconstitutional for
the reason that the appropriation there
/ by made is not for public use, such as
| the State is authorized to make; that
! the maintenance of an exhibition Of the
/ products of the State in the manner
| contemplated does not fail within the
| legitimate authority of the State Gov
/ ernment
'Tn passing upon this proposition it
! is necessary to bear in mind that what
| is for the public good, and what are
| public purposes are questions which
| the Legislature must decide upon its
! own judgment in respect to which it is
vested with large discretion which can
| not be controlled by the courts, except,
| perhaps, where it's action is clearly
| evasive = 1t is undoubtedly