Petitioner citizen sought review of the judgment of dismissal by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which sustained respondent Psychology Examining Committee's demurrer in petitioner's request for a writ of mandate seeking to compel respondents to license only those applicants receiving a passing grade of 75 percent on written and oral examinations in compliance with Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2942.
Petitioner citizen filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel respondent Psychology Examining Committee to license only those applicants receiving a passing grade of 75 percent on examinations in compliance with Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2942. Respondent's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend because petitioner was not a beneficially interested party as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1086, and therefore lacked standing to sue. On appeal, the California attorney search reversed and held that petitioner was a citizen and taxpayer concerned and beneficially interested in respondent's performance to the challenged duty in order to protect consumers from the unqualified practice of psychology. Petitioner had exhausted her administrative remedies and was without an adequate remedy at law. There was an exception to the standing rule where the question was one of public right and the object of the writ was to procure performance of a public duty. Petitioner sought to enforce the statute and determine whether respondent had properly exercised discretion; therefore, the controversy was not political and there was judicial authority to adjudicate the matter.
The judgment of dismissal of petitioner citizen's request for a writ of mandate seeking to compel respondent Psychology Examining Committee's to license only applicants receiving a passing grade of 75 percent on examinations was reversed because petitioner was a citizen and taxpayer concerned and beneficially interested in respondent's performance to the challenged duty in order to protect consumers from the unqualified practice of psychology.
Appellant, the state of California, sought review of judgments against it for damages, entered on jury verdicts in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California). The jury had returned verdicts finding appellant liable for wrongful deaths and personal injuries suffered by respondents, several minors and their parents, in connection with an automobile accident on a public bridge.
Respondents, several minors and their parents, were injured or killed when a car driven by a state veteran's home resident struck their car. Respondents were granted verdicts against appellant, the state, for wrongful death and personal injuries. Appellant sought review, and the court affirmed. While the court found that appellant owed no duty of care to respondents to prevent a state veteran's home resident from driving a car, the court also ruled that there was substantial evidence from which a jury could have found that a dangerous condition existed in the where the accident occurred; and that the condition was a proximate cause of the accident. There was expert evidence that, given high traffic speed and volume, the bridge should have been built according to freeway standards; that an elevated S-curve was dangerous and contrary to sound engineering practices; and that the shoulder and median areas were too narrow for safe travel. The court also found that the jury was properly instructed; and that appellant's second motion to determine the culpability of the maker of respondents' car was barred by res judicata due to an earlier ruling thereon, which was not appealed.
The court affirmed a lower court entry of judgment for respondents, several minors, and their parents, on jury verdicts finding appellant state liable for wrongful death and personal injuries. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that a dangerous condition existed on the bridge where the accident occurred, and that the condition was a proximate cause of the accident.