Reeder v. Hoag

California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 1958 No. Civ. 17491Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the jury verdicts were not inconsistent because the case was not tried on an agency theory and the evidence supported independent liability for one defendant. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the verdicts and that the failure to instruct on agency was not reviewable as no such instruction was requested.

Issues

Whether the jury verdicts were inconsistent as a matter of law based on a theory of respondeat superior.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of principal and agent.
Whether the plaintiff was prejudiced by the jury's verdict of zero dollars against one defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellants cannot, on appeal, urge inconsistencies which can be found only if the verdicts were based upon a theory never presented to the trial court.”

“But appellants requested no such instruction, and thus present no question for review”

“the jury could well find that he breached his duty of care and is liable independently of Hoag.”

DRAPER, J.

P1aintiff Edna Reeder drove the automobile of her son, Max, from San Lorenzo, to Oakland. She had some difficulty with the brakes and took the car to the service station of defendant Mazzie to have them repaired. Mazzie examined the brake system, determined that the difficulty was in the master cylinder, and told Mrs. Reeder that he would not have time to repair it but would arrange to have the job done by another. He sent the car to de

[43]

fendant Hoag, who operated a brake repair shop, at about 3 o’clock p. m. Mazzie told Mrs. Reeder to return for the car at 5 p. m., although he knew the job could not be done in two hours. Mrs. Reeder returned for her car at about that time. Mazzie telephoned Hoag who said that he was having trouble with the master cylinder. The car was returned to the service station at about 5:30. Hoag told Mrs. Reeder that the brake system should be gone over completely, that it would work for a while, and that he did not guarantee the brakes. Mazzie’s usual practice was to test cars on which work had been done. He did not cheek this job, but nonetheless told Mrs. Reeder that the car was safe. On her way home, as Mrs. Reeder drove at about 10 miles per hour, the brakes failed. To avoid collision with other cars, she turned into the curb and struck a parking meter. She brought this action for personal injuries, and her son joined as a plaintiff, seeking recovery for the damage to his ear. Both Mazzie and Hoag were made defendants. Before trial, Mazzie paid $600 to Mrs. Reeder and took from her a covenant not to execute. He was not represented at trial. Upon Mrs. Reeder’s claim, jury verdict was in her favor and against Mazzie in the sum of “zero dollars” and in favor óf defendant Hoag and against her. As to Max Reeder, verdict was against Mazzie in the sum of $238.75, the amount claimed as property damage, but in favor of Hoag. Both plaintiffs appeal.

Appellants urge that Mazzie could be held liable only as principal and that a finding against him necessarily implies a finding that his agent, Hoag, was negligent. Upon this premise, they contend that the verdicts against Mazzie and in favor of Hoag are inconsistent with each other and with the evidence, and that the court erred in instructing that such verdicts could be returned.

Even if the claims of error are sound, Mrs. Reeder is not a party prejudiced. The jury was instructed that any verdict in her favor must be diminished by the $600 she had received from Mazzie. This instruction was correct

Reeder v. Hoag

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief