 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds v. California11/24/1982
vehicle, without more, is thus a discretionary action and comes within the immunity described in Government Code section 820.2. (See McCarthy v. Frost, supra, 33 Cal. App. 3d at p. 875.)
4. Immunity statutes are constitutional.
Although we do not reach the issue of government immunity in this case, we feel compelled to address Bonds' contention that the government immunity statute involved in this case is an unconstitutional violation of due process as it denies the equal protection of the laws.
In Stanley v. City and County of San Francisco (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 575 [121 Cal. Rptr. 842], the court stated at page 581: "A statutory discrimination will not be set aside as a denial of equal protection of the laws if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it (McDonald v. Board of Election (1969) 394 U.S. 802, 808-809; McGowan v. Maryland (1961) 366 U.S. 420, 425-426; Metropolitan Co. v. Brownell (1935) 294 U.S. 580.)" [Italics and parallel citations omitted.]
Here, the statutory discrimination is clearly justified. It is established that the state may impose conditions and limitations on the right to bring suit against it. (Stanley v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, at p. 579; Vinnicombe v. State of California (1959) 172 Cal. App. 2d 54, 56 [341 P.2d 705].) Thus, the state may preclude causes of actions based on the discretionary acts of its employees.
Therefore, Bonds' contention that the government immunity statute violates the equal protection clause has no merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|