Plott v. York

California Court of Appeal Jun 23, 1939 No. Civ. 11810Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. When an employer's liability is predicated solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior, a judgment in favor of the employee on the merits exonerates the employer, even if the employer has defaulted.

Issues

Does a judgment in favor of an employee exonerate a defaulting employer whose liability is based solely on respondeat superior?
May a defaulting defendant benefit from defenses raised by a codefendant that go to the merits of the entire cause of action?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defenses interposed by the answering defendant in the case before us questioned the validity of merits of plaintiffs’ entire cause of action in general, and when such defenses prove successful they enure to the benefit of the defaulting defendant”

“Where, as in the instant case, the real actor, who is liable personally notwithstanding his acting for his employer, is not guilty, it necessarily follows that his employer for whom he was acting cannot be held.”

WHITE, J.

This is an appeal from an order and the judgment rendered thereon in favor of The Foothill Supply Company, a corporation, defendant, in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment and the assessment of damages in plaintiffs’ favor after a default entered against defendant and respondent herein.

On January 27,1937, plaintiffs commenced an action against one C. H. York and The Foothill Supply Company, a corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the former as the result of a collision between an automobile operated by the plaintiff Lulu M. Plott in which the plaintiff Reeeil Poor was riding as a guest, and an automobile alleged to have been negligently operated by defendant C. H. York while the latter was acting in the course and scope of his employment as agent, servant and employee of his codefendant, The Foothill Supply Company.

The defendant C. H. York duly filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and setting up the further special defenses of unavoidable accident and contributory negligence. On February 12, 1937, defendant The Foothill Supply Company was served with a copy of summons and complaint, but failed to appear or file an answer or other pleading, and upon application of plaintiffs default was entered against defendant corporation on May 8, 1937. Upon the issues framed by the complaint and the answer of defendant York the case proceeded to trial before a jury on January 19, 1938. By reason of dismissals seasonably filed, there remained only the two plaintiffs, Lulu M. Plott and Reeeil Poor. At the conclusion of the evidence the cause was submitted to the jury on the question of liability as to the answering defendant York, whereupon counsel for plaintiffs proffered an instruction directing the jury to return a verdict

[462]

in favor of plaintiffs as against the defaulting defendant The Foothill Supply Company. The requested instruction reads as follows:

“You are instructed to return verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs Lulu M. Plott and Reecil Poor and against the defendant, The Foothill Supply Company, a corporation, for the amount of damages you find they have suffered, respectively, under instructions given you respecting damages.”

Plott v. York

AI Brief

WHITE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief