Hutson

Hutson v. the Owl Drug Co.

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 134·79 Cal. App. 390·249 P. 524
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 1926Docket No. 5297.California1,386 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Campbell, J.

This is an action for damages for alleged violation of section 51 of the Civil Code relating to personal rights and for assault and battery. The judgment-roll only is before the court.

Appellant bases its appeal upon the following specifications: 1. That the findings of fact show clearly that the defendant was not responsible for the assault found to have been committed; 2. That the findings of fact do not show a violation by the defendant of the plaintiffs’ civil rights; 3. That the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint was erroneously overruled.

As to the first specification, it is not claimed by respondent that appellant was responsible for any injury resulting to appellant from the assault found to have been committed by its employee. Respondents’ position being that the fact of the assault, together with the fact that the employee Tucker remarked in a loud voice: “What did you serve the nigger fori I wouldn’t have served her. She coidd have set there until tomorrow,” established the fact that respondent was not accorded the same accommodation applicable alike to all citizens. Section 51 of the Civil Code provides: “All citizens within the jurisdiction of this state are…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.