Gorham v. Taylor

California Court of Appeal Dec 23, 1959 No. Civ. 6206Published

Before: Monroe

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A motor vehicle dealer who has made a bona fide sale and delivered possession of a vehicle is not liable for the purchaser's subsequent operation of the vehicle if the dealer has provided the required notice of transfer to the Department of Motor Vehicles, even if the dealer's own title registration was not yet complete.

Issues

Whether a dealer who has not yet perfected their own title registration can effectively transfer ownership and terminate liability under the Vehicle Code by providing notice of sale to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Whether a summary judgment was improperly granted due to the existence of a triable issue regarding ownership and liability.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that a complete transfer of title of record to Taylor had not been perfected when he gave the notice in accordance with section 177 of the Vehicle Code does not estop him from relying upon that section.”

“An owner as contemplated by section 402 may be an actual owner even though he has not complied with the formalities of the Vehicle Code with reference to transfer of title.”

“Under these circumstances the legal result follows that Collins became the owner of the vehicle, that Taylor was no longer legally responsible for its operation, and that therefore summary judgment was properly rendered.”

MONROE, J. pro tem.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received as the result of a collision between a motorcycle operated by the plaintiff Robert J. Allen, and an automobile operated by the defendant Walter L. Collins. It was alleged that Collins was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision. Joined as defendants were Timothy Lineourt, Oscar Taylor, and Orange Coast Car Specialties.

[602]

It is alleged that the last named defendants were the owners of the car operated by defendant Collins.

The defendant Oscar Taylor moved for a summary judgment upon the ground that, doing business as Orange Coast Car Specialties, he had sold the automobile to defendant Collins and had complied with the requirements of the Vehicle Code regarding such sale, and was therefore not responsible under section 402 of the Vehicle Code. This motion was granted and a judgment rendered in favor of defendant Taylor, from which judgment the plaintiffs appealed.

In support of the motion, affidavit was filed establishing that on March 4, 1958, he purchased the automobile from Timothy Lincourt in the course of his business as a car dealer under the name of Orange Coast Car Specialties, that thereafter, on March 6, he sold the automobile to defendant Collins and delivered possession thereof and that on the same day he mailed to the Motor Vehicle Department a dealer’s notice as provided by the Vehicle Code. By further affidavits it was established that this notice was received by the Vehicle Department on the 10th day of March. The accident in question took place on March 16. Copies of certificates of ownership revealed that the car had been registered in the name of Eugene D. Surprenant, Jr., that in January of 1958 he had transferred the same to Mesa Auto Wreckers and application for transfer by them to Timothy Lincourt was dated February 4, 1958. The application for transfer to Lincourt was in possession of the Motor Vehicle Department at the time the automobile was purchased and sold by defendant Taylor.

The appellant contends that a summary judgment was improperly granted in that there existed a triable issue and contends, further, that the provisions of section 178 of the Vehicle Code had not been complied with and that respondent Taylor is thereby estopped to deny ownership.

Gorham v. Taylor

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief