International Harvester Co. v. Superior Court

BRAT, J.

*

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the Shasta County Superior Court to grant its motion for summary judgment.

Question Presented

Would answers of real parties in interest

1

to questions in discovery require a motion for summary judgment to be granted against them?

Record

Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action in the Shasta County Superior Court against petitioner-herein as defendant, alleging that defendant was negligent in the design and manufacture of a certain trailer dolly which caused a truck to go over an embankment on a highway in Shasta County, resulting in the complained of death. After the answer was filed defendant sent to plaintiffs a “Request for Admission of Pacts and Interrogatories, ’ ’ consisting of two requests only;

“Bequest for Admission No.

1—That plaintiffs know of no

[654]

fact upon which to support a cause of action against International Harvester Company. ’ ’

“Bequest-for Admission No.

2—That plaintiffs know of no facts to support a 'claim that International Harvester Company was negligent in the design or manufacture of that certain trailer dolly. ’ ’

To each request, plaintiffs replied, admitting that they knew of no facts concerning the matters set forth in the requests.

Thereupon, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs. The trial court denied the motion and gave the following opinion: “This motion is based upon a reply to an admission for answers in which the plaintiff states that she has no knowledge of facts imputing liability to moving party. Moving defendant earnestly contends that this is not the correct way to answer demands for admissions and that, therefore, impliedly plaintiff states that no one has any knowledge that would hold defendant liable. Moving defendant’s position really consists of a