McLaughlin v. Lasater

California Court of Appeal Dec 7, 1954 No. Civ. 20500Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a nonsuit was improper because the plaintiffs' opening statement established a prima facie case of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and through evidence suggesting improper maintenance of the vehicle's wheel assembly.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when a wheel detaches from a moving vehicle and causes injury.
Whether an opening statement alleging that a wheel detached due to missing lug nuts creates a reasonable inference of negligence sufficient to survive a motion for nonsuit.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A wheel does not ordinarily become detached from an automobile in the absence of negligence in either its operation or maintenance.”

“When res ipsa loquitur is applicable, as it is here, “an inference of defendant’s negligence may be drawn.””

“From these facts a jury would have reasonably inferred that defendants’ employee, who switched the tires, had failed to exercise due care in replacing the nuts on the lugs”

FOX, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit, granted on plaintiffs’ opening statement.

The action is for damages growing out of an automobile accident. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, in general terms, in both the operation and maintenance of defendants’ vehicle.

Plaintiffs’ opening statement was as follows:

“Plaintiffs expect the evidence in this ease to show, in reference to the issue of liability, that on November 30, 1951, at or about the hour of 7:30 o’clock p. m., the plaintiff Lawrence Neil McLaughlin was driving his 1947 Studebaker 2-door sedan automobile in a general easterly direction on Highway No. 99, about four miles east of Redlands, California, at a speed of 35 or 40 miles an hour. In the car with him were his minor sons, the plaintiff Gerald who sat next to him in the front seat, the plaintiff Leslie who sat at Gerald’s right in the front seat, and in the back seat the plaintiff Thelma McLaughlin, his wife, and the plaintiff Sandra McLaughlin, his minor daughter. That the highway was paved and dry. That night had fallen. That Highway 99, at the point in question, is a divided lane highway, the eastbound and westbound lanes being separated by an unpaved dirt areaway 20 feet wide, or thereabouts. That Highway 99, at that point, curves slightly and declines toward the west and inclines toward the east.

“That the defendant Marjorie May Lasater, at the time and place in question, was operating a 1948 Crosley automobile in a general westerly direction on Highway 99. That the said 1948 Crosley automobile was owned by the defendant Marjorie May Lasater and her husband, the defendant George Lasater, and that the latter was the registered owner thereof. That Marjorie May Lasater was driving the said car with the consent, permission and authority of the defendant George Lasater.

“That during the time that they had owned the 1948 Crosley and in August, 1951, defendants had authorized and directed their agent and employee, one Spohn, to remove the running wheels of the Crosley automobile and to change their positions so that the right rear wheel was installed as the left front wheel of the said automobile. This was done in order to equalize the wear on the tires. At all times

[434]

McLaughlin v. Lasater

AI Brief

FOX, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief