McCalla v. Grosse

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 1941 No. Civ. 12714Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against the true owners of an automobile when it alleges they retained ownership while registering the vehicle in another's name to avoid liability, and that they knowingly entrusted the vehicle to an incompetent driver.

Issues

Whether the true owner of an automobile can be held liable under Section 402 of the California Vehicle Code despite registration in another's name.
Whether an owner who knowingly entrusts a vehicle to an incompetent driver is liable for damages caused by that driver's negligence.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is clear that it was the legislative intent to make the actual owners of automobiles liable for the negligence of those to whom permission is given to drive them.”

“one who knowingly permits an unfit driver to use his automobile is liable for damages caused by the negligent acts of the unfit driver in the operation of the car.”

[547]

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which he suffered when on November 25, 1938, he was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Grosse and alleged to be owned by defendants Stover. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendant Grosse in the sum of $9,000 but the demurrer of defendants Stover to the third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend and the action was dismissed as to them. The appeal is prosecuted from the judgment of dismissal.

Prom the allegations of the complaint it appears that prior to the accident in question defendants Stover were doing business as automobile dealers and that on November 18, 1938, they received the automobile driven by defendant Grosse as part payment on the purchase price of an automobile which they sold to one Bertrand Close; that after the sale to Close “defendants Stover were the owners of and used said automobile as a family car”. A new certificate of ownership was issued by the Motor Vehicle Department showing Mae G. Stover to be the new owner of the car and a certificate of registration was issued showing the registered owner to be John G. Grosse. It is further alleged “that no chattel mortgage, conditional sale contract, or other evidence showing Mae G. Stover to be owner for security purposes was ever recorded with said Motor Vehicle Department; that the record ownership of said automobile has continued in the same parties without change since said November 18, 1938 . . . that the said defendants Stover did thereupon permit said defendant Grosse the use of said automobile and caused the same to be registered in his name for the sole purpose of avoiding liability for injuries which might result from the operation of said automobile by the said defendant John G. Grosse, and. that despite said registration in the name of John G. Grosse the said defendants Stover were at the time said accident occurred the true owners of said automobile. ’ ’

In paragraph 2 of the amended complaint plaintiff makes the following allegations: “That plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that at all times mentioned herein said defendant John G. Grosse was and now is an aged and enfeebled man more than eighty (80) years of age, with eyesight so defective he could not see a distance of more

McCalla v. Grosse

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief