Power Tool & Supply Co. v. Lakeside Chevrolet Co.
Before: McClosky
Opinion
McCLOSKY, J.
Cross-complainants Power Tool & Supply Company (Power Tool) and John A. Zettel (Zettel) appeal from the summary judgment in favor of Lakeside Chevrolet Company (Lakeside).
1
That summary judgment resulted in the dismissal of Power Tool and Zettel’s cross-complaint for indemnification against Lakeside.
Facts
Sharon Berry and David Valdez Gutierrez filed a complaint against Power Tool, Zettel and Fruehauf Distributing Corp. (Freuhauf) for negligence and strict liability. In summary, that complaint sought recovery for injuries sus
[950]
tained when a vehicle occupied by plaintiffs was struck by a trailer that had broken away from a vehicle owned by Power Tool and operated by Zettel.
Power Tool and Zettel cross-complained for indemnity initially against Fruehauf, the alleged manufacturer of the errant trailer, but later amended to include Lakeside as a cross-defendant. Freuhauf in turn cross-complained for indemnification against Lakeside. Lakeside then noticed a motion for summary judgment against both cross-complainants on their cross-complaints. The court granted the motion as to Fruehauf but denied it as to Power Tool and Zettel. Fruehauf appealed this ruling.
In
Fruehauf Corp.
v.
Lakeside Chevrolet Co.
(1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 783 [173 Cal.Rptr. 55], we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The evidence in support of that motion demonstrated that Lakeside acquired trailers as trade-ins for the purchase of other vehicles. Lakeside then sold these trailers “as is” to Fruehauf who in turn sold them to the public. The trailer involved in the incident was one of those trailers.
In
Fruehauf,
we were faced with a first impression interpretation of Vehicle Code section 24007, subdivision (a) which provides that “[n]o dealer or person holding a retail seller’s permit shall sell a new or used vehicle which is not in compliance with the provisions of this code and departmental regulations adopted pursuant to this code unless the vehicle is (1) sold to another dealer, (2) sold for the purpose of being wrecked or dismantled, or (3) sold exclusively for off-highway use.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)