De La Forest v. Yandle

California Court of Appeal Jun 2, 1959 No. Civ. 9449Published

Before: Van Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a party who negligently repairs a chattel is liable to indemnify the party who relied upon that repair, even if both parties are concurrent tortfeasors, provided the reliance was justifiable.

Issues

Whether a party who negligently repairs a chattel must indemnify the party who relied on that repair for damages paid to a third party.
Whether the statute of limitations for an indemnity claim begins to run before the underlying tort claim is settled.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the circumstances appellants are entitled to indemnity.”

“The right to indemnity did not arise until the compromise had been perfect and appellants had obtained the release of all the tort feasors.”

VAN DYKE, P. J.

This appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondents following an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the facts may be stated as follows:

Plaintiff-appellant De La Forest was the operator of a truck repair shop. Plaintiff-appellant Mast Lumber Company owned and operated a truck and trailer. The middle axle of the trailer had become so worn as to require repair. Mast employed De La Forest to repair the axle and he sublet the work of rebuilding and resurfacing the axle to Temple, a welder, and to Yandle, a machinist, both of whom, in the operation of their respective businesses, held themselves out as qualified, equipped, skilled and expert in their crafts. When they had finished welding and machining the axle they returned it to De La Forest as completed and ready for use. Justifiably relying upon their having done their work properly, De La Forest and Mast, without first inspecting the axle, installed it in Mast’s trailer. The work of respondents was negligently done and the axle was unsafe for use. Mast used the trailer on the highways and during such use the axle, due to the negligent repair, failed at or near the point where defendants had welded and machined it, with the result that two wheels came off, crossed the highway and struck an automobile being operated by Donald Urban, proximately causing his death. The widow and minor child of Urban filed suit against Mast and De La Forest alleging that the death of Urban had been proximately caused by the carelessness and negligence of Mast and De La Forest “in the driving, operating, ownership, sale, manufacture, repair, inspection, control and maintenance of said trailer.” These two demanded that Temple and Yandle indemnify and hold them harmless from loss resulting by reason of the death of Urban and the suit by his widow and child; and also demanded that they defend the action. This Temple and Yandle refused to do. Thereupon Mast and De La Forest, in good faith, compromised the Urban action, taking releases in favor of all persons. The amount of the settlement was $45,000 as against a demand in excess of $100,000 and was reasonable.

The complaint states a cause of action. We quote the following from Restatement of Restitution, section 93:

“(1) Where a person has supplied to another a chattel

[61]

De La Forest v. Yandle

AI Brief

VAN DYKE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief