Case Name: SAMUEL BLOOM, Respondent, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1884-01-29
Citations: 64 Cal. 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAMUEL BLOOM, Respondent, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
[In Bank.
January 29, 1884.]
SAMUEL BLOOM, Respondent, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Appellant.
Municipal Cokpobation—Damases fob Defective Sewebs.—The city and county of San Francisco has such proprietorship of the city and county hospital as renders it liable for damages caused by its failure to abate a nuisance created by defective and improper sewerage of the hospital.
Id. — Pbesenting Demand to Supebvisobs—A claim for damages arising from such cause need not be presented to the board of supervisors for payment before an action can be maintained.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The complaint alleged in substance that the refuse from the city and county hospital was conducted over the land of the plaintiff, through a trough, which, being defective and rotten, burst and discharged the contents over his premises; that though often notified, through its board of supervisors, the defendant neglected and refused to abate the nuisance; and that by reason thereof the plaintiff and- his son became sick and suffered great pain and expense and loss of time; and demanded twenty thousand dollars’ damages. The case was tried with a jury, and a general verdict was rendered for plaintiff for eighteen hundred dollars. The claim was not presented to the board of supervisors for payment before the commencement of the action.
City and County Attorney, for Appellant.
Joseph Leggett, and Mich. Mullany, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
—We think the city and county of San Francisco had such proprietorship of the city and county hospital as rendered it liable for damages in the case as presented in the transcript. We also think the claim of plaintiff was not a claim to be presented to the board of supervisors before an action could have been maintained.
Judgment and order affirmed.