Irvine v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1955Published

Before: Burch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an owner is not liable for a bailee's unauthorized use of a vehicle that constitutes a conversion, and that a party who represents themselves as the registered owner and exercises control over a vehicle is liable as an owner under the Vehicle Code.

Issues

Whether an owner is liable under the Vehicle Code for a bailee's use of a vehicle that exceeds the scope of the bailment and constitutes conversion.
Whether a party who represents themselves as the registered owner and exercises control over a vehicle is subject to statutory liability as an owner.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether an owner grants permission is a question of fact to be proved at the trial.”

“To hold Mrs. Pollard liable would be to hold that a bailor is liable for acts of the bailee outside the contract of bailment.”

“He is therefore liable as an owner within the contemplation of section 402, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code.”

137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 843 (1955) MARVINE L. IRVINE, JR., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

GEORGIA L. WILSON et al., Defendants and Appellants.

California Court of Appeals.

Oct. 31, 1955. Fitzgerald & Selleck and Willard M. Sinclair for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gertrude Pollard, in pro. per., Kaminar & Sorbo, Myron P. Kaminar, Murphy & Albert and Harry Albert for Defendants and Appellants.

BURCH, J.

The appeals in this action involve the application of the ownership and permissive use provisions of section 402, subdivision (a), of the Vehicle Code.

Mrs. Pollard's 1949 Cadillac, while being operated by her daughter, Mrs. Wilson, collided with and damaged plaintiff's automobile. Mrs. Pollard had delivered the Cadillac, together with the registration certificates, duly indorsed, to Mr. Wilson, sales manager of a secondhand automobile sales lot, only for the purposes of sale. Mrs. Pollard gave no express permission to her daughter to operate the Cadillac on the day [137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 846] of the accident, but had, before delivering its possession to Mr. Wilson, authorized her on occasions to drive it only to the grocery store. Mrs. Wilson had express permission from Mr. Wilson to take the Cadillac from the sales lot on the day of the accident.

On this and evidence later stated herein, the trial court found that Mrs. Pollard, though an owner, had not given permission for Mrs. Wilson's use at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs have appealed from this part of the judgment.

Mr. Wilson received possession of the Cadillac and the indorsed certificates of registration and assigned insurance on September 13 or 14. The accident occurred on September 22, 1952. On September 19 he surrendered the certificate of ownership to his bank as security for a loan, after indorsing in the space provided his own name as the transferee and the new owner for the purposes of the registration provisions of the Vehicle Code. (Veh. Code, 56 and 175 et seq.) He collected the insurance and paid for the repairs to the Cadillac after the accident. He expressly granted to his wife permission to take the Cadillac on the day of the accident.

Upon this evidence the court found he was an owner and granted permission for the use. From this portion of the judgment Mr. Wilson appeals.

Irvine v. Wilson

AI Brief

BURCH, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief