Collard v. Love

California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 1936 No. Civ. 11107Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a registered owner of a motor vehicle is liable for damages resulting from the negligent operation of the vehicle by a permissive user under Civil Code section 1714¼, and that the registered owner cannot avoid liability by citing a failure to procure a new registration certificate.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle for purposes of liability under Civil Code section 1714¼.
Whether the appellant could avoid liability by claiming the transfer of the vehicle was incomplete under the California Vehicle Act.
Whether the damages awarded to the plaintiff were excessive.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the word “owner” as used in this section refers to the “registered owner”.”

“He cannot now-take advantage of his own failure to comply with the provisions of the Vehicle Act.”

“In view of the evidence disclosed by the record we cannot hold that the amount of the judgment is excessive.”

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff Clyde V. Collard, Jr., was struck and injured on July, 1, 1935, by an automobile negligently operated by defendant Love. At the time of the accident California Funding Corporation was the legal owner of the car and defendant Coffman, as transferee from defendant Love, was the registered owner according to the records of the division of motor vehicles (as it was then known). Coffman endorsed his name on the ownership certificate as registered owner, allowed it to be forwarded to Sacramento and thereafter consented to the operation of the car by Love. The trial court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment to plaintiff against both Coffman and Love in the sum of $4,000. Defendant Coffman appeals.

It is the contention of appellant that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding that he was the owner of the car and that the trial court erred in declining to permit him to prove that Love did not sell or transfer the car to him and that he “had an agreement with Love to make payments upon the automobile”. The basis of respondent’s claim for damages is section 1714¼ of the Civil Code as it was in force on the date of the accident. That section provided that “every owner” of a motor vehicle should be liable for negligence in the operation of the vehicle by a person using it with the permission of the owner. The section did not distinguish between the registered owner and the legal owner but merely used the expression “every owner”. The use of the word “owner” has, however, been made definite in the case of

Bunch

Kin, 2

Cal. App. (2d) 81 [37 Pac. (2d) 744], where it is held that the word “owner” as used in this section refers to the “registered owner”. The evidence of ownership was sufficient to bring appellant within the provisions of section 1714¼ of the Civil Code. Appellant did not offer proof attacking the registration in his name. The ruling of the court on the admission of evidence was proper.

(Bunch

Kin, supra; Schmidt

C. I. T. Corporation,

14 Cal. App. (2d) 92 [57 Pac. (2d) 1016].) Appellant refers to

[74]

Collard v. Love

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

C. I. T. Corporation,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

C. I. T. Corporation, supra; San Joaquin Valley Securities Co.

AI Brief