Nemeth v. Hair

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 1956 No. Civ. 16904Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A municipal court judgment against a husband in a personal injury action is res judicata as to his wife's subsequent superior court action for the same accident because the damages remain community property, establishing privity between the spouses. The 1951 amendment to Civil Code section 171c, which granted the wife management and control over certain community property, did not alter the underlying community property status of personal injury damages or the privity rule established in Zaragosa v. Craven.

Issues

Whether a municipal court judgment against a husband is res judicata as to his wife in a subsequent action for the same accident.
Whether the 1951 amendment to Civil Code section 171c changed the rule that a wife is in privity with her husband regarding community property personal injury damages.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rationale of that case is that a wife is in privity with her husband when he sues for his damages to such an extent that she is, in effect, a real party in interest in that action, and is bound by the judgment therein.”

“Thus, the rule of the Zaragosa ease was not affected by the adoption of section 171c of the Civil Code.”

“Since the husband is estopped to relitigate the issue of the corporate defendant’s liability, the appellant is also bound, under the doctrine of the Zaragosa ease.”

PETERS, P. J.

Bernice M. Nemeth appeals from a summary judgment adverse to her rendered by the Superior Court of Alameda County. The basic question involved is whether a prior municipal court judgment adverse to her husband is res judicata as to Mrs. Nemeth in this superior court action.

The Nemeths owned an automobile as community property. On September 14, 1953, Mr. and Mrs. Nemeth, and their son Anthony, were riding in the car then being driven by Mr. Nemeth when it collided with an automobile then being driven by one Hair. The Nemeths carried a $40 deductible collision insurance policy. The insurance carrier then paid to Mr. Nemeth the sum of $151.74, the amount of the damages to the Nemeth car less the $40 deductible, and took back a standard form of subrogation agreement. On April 22, 1954, the insurance company, acting under the express terms of the subrogation agreement, brought an action in the name of Mr. Nemeth in the municipal court against Hair and the Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company for the $151.74 it had paid to Nemeth, for Nemeth’s $40 paid by him under the deductible policy, and for damages for loss of use of the car. Nemeth was not consulted about the filing of this action. The corporate defendant moved for a summary judgment on the ground that it did not own the offending automobile and that Hair, as a matter of law, was an independent contractor. This motion was denied.

On August 4, 1954, Mrs. Nemeth and her minor son commenced an action in the superior court against the same two defendants to recover damages for the personal injuries claimed to have been suffered by them in the same accident.

On August 10, 1954, the corporate defendant renewed its motion for a summary judgment in the municipal court action, and this time, on August 31, 1954, the motion was granted. An appeal was taken to the appellate department of the superior court, and on January 28, 1955, that court affirmed this summary judgment in favor of the corporate defendant. The judgment is now final.

In the meantime, a similar motion was made in the superior court action. This motion, on December 2, 1954, was denied, but after the affirmance by the appellate department of the superior court, it was renewed on the ground that as to Mrs.

[407]

Nemeth v. Hair

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief