Gonzalez v. Derrington

California Supreme Court Jun 26, 1961 No. L. A. 26283; L. A. 26284; L. A. 26285; L. A. 26286Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the intentional criminal acts of third parties in using gasoline to start a fire constituted an independent, intervening cause that was not foreseeable, thereby precluding liability for the defendants who sold the gasoline in violation of a municipal ordinance. Additionally, the court held that a memorandum of costs cannot be filed by a party in whose favor no judgment was entered.

Issues

Was there an efficient, intervening cause that produced the injuries and deaths, breaking the chain of causation?
Did the trial court err in granting the motions to strike the plaintiffs' memorandum of costs and disbursements?

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is nothing in the record to establish that the sale of the gasoline was a proximate cause of the subsequent injuries and deaths without the intentional misconduct of Bates and Chavez, which constituted an independent, intervening cause”

“It cannot logically be said that there is an “extreme danger,” or that it is foreseeable, that gasoline bought in an open can will be used intentionally to injure others.”

“No judgment was ever entered in favor of plaintiffs Gonzalez. Therefore, the trial court properly granted the motion to strike the memorandum of costs and disbursements.”

McCOMB, J.

These appeals involve four separate actions arising out of an explosion and fire that occurred on April 4, 1957, in a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles known as the Mecca Club.

The case of

Spinelli

Derrington et al.

is an action to recover damages for injuries.

The remaining three cases are actions to recover damages for wrongful death instituted by the respective heirs at law of the deceased persons.

The four cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial and were thereafter tried by a jury. The jury returned its verdicts in favor of the respective plaintiffs and against defendants Oliver B. Derrington, Union Oil Company of California and Campbell P. Ledgerwood in the following amounts: The sum of $45,000 for plaintiffs Joseph Andalón Gonzalez and Camerina Gonzalez; the sum of $100,000 for plaintiff Barbara Lee Spinelli; the sum of $45,000 for plaintiffs Pearl Smaldino et al., and the sum of $12,000 for plaintiffs Eleanor M. Kestel et al.

Defendants Oliver B. Derrington, Union Oil Company of California and Campbell P. Ledgerwood each made and filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial.

The trial court made orders (1) setting aside the verdicts

[132]

of the jury in favor of the respective plaintiffs as to defendant Union Oil Company of California and ordering judgments in each case in favor of said defendant; (2) granting defendant Oliver B. Derrington’s and defendant Campbell P. Ledger-wood’s motions for new trials, on the ground that in each case the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdicts; and (3) granting the motions of defendants Oliver B. Derrington, Union Oil Company, and Campbell P. Ledgerwood to strike the memorandum of costs and disbursements filed by plaintiffs.

All plaintiffs have appealed from the first two orders and the respective judgments in favor of defendant Union Oil Company of California, and plaintiffs Joseph Andalón Gonzalez and Camerina Gonzalez have also appealed from the third order.

Gonzalez v. Derrington

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief