Bettencourt v. State of California

MARIA SIMAS BETTENCOURT, Respondent, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant.

COUNSEL

C. C. Carleton, Frank B. Durkee, C. R. Montgomery and Robert E. Reed for Appellant.

John J. O'Toole, City Attorney (San Francisco), Henry Heidelberg and Albert F. Skelly, Deputies City Attorney, Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney (Los Angeles), William H. Neal and Leon T. David, Assistants City Attorney, and Arthur W. Nordstorm, Deputy City Attorney, as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Appellant.

E. H. Christian and Eugene K. Sturgis for Respondent.

Holbrook & Tarr, Leslie R. Tarr, Hill, Morgan & Bledsoe, Stanley S. Burrill, Charles P. McCarthy, Kenneth K. Wright and Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, as Amici Curiae, on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

CARTER, J.

This is one of several appeals from judgments entered in actions for damages arising out of highway construction work. In each instance, the facts are substantially the same, although the extent of the injury varies. [19 Cal. 2d 877]

The amount awarded for damage in this particular case was the sum of $3,500. All material legal points here presented are disposed of in a decision this day filed in the case of Rose v. State of California, No. 16040, ante, p. 713 [123 PaCal.2d 505]. Upon the grounds and for the reasons there given, the judgment herein is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Curtis, J., and Houser, J., concurred.