Hadden v. Moran
Before: Adams
ADAMS, P. J. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether a compromise settlement effected by plaintiffs with defendants Pete J. Moran and his wife, Leola, operated, as a matter of law, to release defendants Betty Jane Eequa and Carl S. Eequa from liability for damages for injuries sustained by plaintiffs Bertha Hadden and Peggy Metzler in an automobile collision, and for expenses incurred by Charles Hadden due to the injuries to his wife, Bertha.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that at the time of the accident, Peggy Metzler was driving west on Highway No. 40 in Solano County in a De Soto coupé in which plaintiff Bertha Hadden was a passenger; that defendants Pete J. Moran and his wife, Leola, were the owners of a De Soto eoupé being operated by Pete in the same direction, in which plaintiffs’ car was operated, namely, in a westerly direction; that defendants Betty Jane Eequa and Carl Eequa were the owners of a Packard coupé being operated by Betty and driven easterly on said highway; that Moran and Eeqna operated their respective vehicles in such a careless and negligent manner as to cause the Eequa ear to run into the car occupied by plaintiffs; that said careless and negligent manner in which defendants Pete J. Moran and Betty Jane Eequa did operate their said automobiles jointly and concurrently resulted in the collision of the Eequa automobile with the automobile operated by plaintiff Peggy Metzler; and that said accident was the result of said joint and concurrent negligent manner in which said defendants did operate, manage and 'control their said automobiles at said time and place. Elsewhere in the complaint it was repeated some 14 or 15 times that the accident was the proximate result of the joint and concurrent negligence of defendants Moran and Eequa, and in no place was it alleged that the accident was caused by reason of the sole negligence of either of the operators of defendants’ cars.
Some months after the filing of plaintiffs’ complaint plaintiffs Hadden entered into an agreement with defendants Moran which provided:
“For and in consideration of the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) to ns in hand paid by Peter J. Morand, receipt of which is hereby acknowledge, we Bertha Hadden and Charles Hadden ... do héreby release, acquit and forever discharge said Peter J. Morand and Leola F. Morand, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action which we or either of us now have or may have in the future for injuries to person or damage to property [779]
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)