General Brewing Corp. v. Clark

KAUS, P. J.

On January 31, 1964, there was a collision between a truck owned by General Brewing Corporation (“General”) and an automobile occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Andrew G. Krumm. On January 5,1965, the Krumms filed an action for personal injuries and property damage against General. General answered on February 4,1965.

In December 1965 General learned that Mrs. Krumm claimed that certain of her injuries were the result of negligent treatment which she received at the hands of the Gallatin Medical Group (“Gallatin”) on February 2, 1964. Gallatin is a partnership composed of Doctors Clark, Paugh and Mullin.

On January 15, 1966, General filed a cross-complaint against Gallatin, in which it sought indemnity for that portion of any judgment in Mrs. Krumm’s favor which would be attributable to the negligent treatment by Gallatin.

1

Gallatin demurred on the ground that the cross-complaint was barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to actions for personal injuries. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. 3.) The demurrer was sustained. General attempted to amend, but again a general demurrer urging the statute of limitations was sustained, this time without leave to amend. General appeals.

Whatever ailed General’s cause of action was not a problem of old age. The only attack on the cross-complaint which is plausible—though erroneous—would be that it is premature, not that the cause of action it pleads is outlawed.

2

The problem is when the cause of action for indemnity matures, not whether, at maturity, it is then governed by the one-year provision of the statute of limitations, or by a longer period. As thus posed, the issue was settled against Gallatin in

De La Forest

v.

Yandle,

171 Cal.App.2d 59, 62 [340 P.2d 52], That case was followed in

Vegetable Oil Products Co.

v.

Superior

[520]