In Jordy v. County of Humboldt (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 735, after officials employed by the defendant County placed the minor plaintiff in a foster care home, the plaintiff injured himself while driving the foster family's all terrain vehicle. (Id. at pp. 739-740.) The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in his suit against the County, but the trial court ordered a new trial on the ground the jury should not have been instructed that the County owed the plaintiff a nondelegable duty to provide the equivalent of parental care and guidance. (Id. at p. 740.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of a new trial. It rejected the plaintiff's argument that a nondelegable duty was imposed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, which stated in relevant part that when a minor is removed from his family, the purpose of the juvenile court law is "'to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents,'" and further provided that minors removed from their homes "'shall receive care, treatment and guidance consistent with their best interest' and that of the public. " (Jordy, supra, at p. 742.) After reviewing the statute's language and legislative history, the Court concluded that it could not be read to impose a duty on the County to prevent all forms of parental neglect by foster families with whom minors may be placed. (Id. at p. 744.) The Jordy court then went on, however, to limit the application of its holding to instances of ordinary negligence, noting that even if the statutory scheme could be construed to impose any type of nondelegable duty on the County, "it would certainly be limited to those specific evils the juvenile court law was enacted to prevent, i.e., intentional abuse and systematic neglect. " (Jordy, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 744.) While this statement, in isolation, would seem to undercut the trial court's reliance on Jordy, the court elaborated on its qualification. Emphasizing that the statutory scheme was designed to prevent egregious parental abuse and neglect, the court cited with approval Vonner v. State Department of Public Welfare (La. 1973) 273 So.2d 252, where the foster children had been severely beaten by the foster parents and one child was killed. Though the children had complained about the beatings to their social worker, the state agency had failed to conduct regular inspections of the home. (Id. at pp. 253-254.) On the basis of a Louisiana statute charging the state with responsibility for the physical well-being of a foster child, the court found that the state had a nondelegable duty to prevent the physical abuse of foster children. (Id. at p. 256; see Jordy, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 745.) Importantly, the Jordy court summarized the principle to be gleaned from the Louisiana case: "We find Vonner stands for the proposition that a public entity has a duty to prevent physical abuse of children in the custody of the state where it has notice of the abuse, which is not the case here." (Jordy, supra, at p. 745.)