Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales

Decision Date20 July 1961
Parties, 363 P.2d 881 Michael G. DANA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUTTON MOTOR SALES et al., Defendants and Respondents. Sac. 7309.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

Hardin, Fletcher, Cook & Hayes, Oakland, and Cyril Viadro, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Clifford R. Lewis, Sacramento, for defendants and respondents.

McCOMB, Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants in an action for declaratory relief.

Facts: August 7, 1957, plaintiff Michael G. Dana bought a used automobile from defendants under a conditional sales contract. 1 It was a condition of the sale (imposed by defendants) that the automobile be convered by insurance, and the subject of the insurance was accordingly discussed between plaintiff and defendants.

Plaintiff asked that he be provided with 'full coverage,' and defendants undertook to provide him with it.

Defendants however, procured a policy which merely provided collision and comprehensive coverage for the automobile, and which did not provide plaintiff with any public liability or property damage coverage. Defendants failed to give plaintiff the written notice required by section 187 (now section 5604) of the Vehicle Code. 2

About two months after the sale plaintiff's brother was involved in an accident while driving the automobile with plaintiff's consent. As a result, several claims for personal injuries and property damage were made against plaintiff. As he did not have the statutory coverage, the Department of Motor Vehicles suspended his license and registration for a period of one year in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Vehicle Code.

While this suspension was in effect plaindtiff instituted the present action to recover damages (or to have his rights declared because of defendants' failure to give him the notice required by section 187 of the Vehicle Code. The trial court dismissed the action and entered judgment in favor of defendants.

These questions are here presented:

First: Did the facts set forth above, as alleged in the complaint, state a cause of action against defendants?

Yes. Section 187 of the Vehicle Code does not directly create a civil liability. However, the section furnishes a basis for tort liability based upon defendants' negligence in failing to perform the statutory duty imposed upon them by the section.

In Clinkscales v. Carver, 22 Cal.2d 72, 75(2), 136 P.2d 777, 778, this court said: 'A statute that provides for a criminal proceeding only does not create a civil liability; if there is no provision for a remedy by civil action to persons injured by a breach of the statute it is because the Legislature did not contemplate one. A suit for damages is based on the theory that the conduct inflicting the injuries is a common-law tort * * *. The significance of the statute in a civil suit for negligence lies in its formulation of a standard of conduct that the court adopts in the determination of such liability. (Citations.) * * *. When a legislative body has generalized a standard from the experience of the community and prohibits conduct that is likely to cause harm, the court accepts the formulated standards and applies them * * *.

'Even if the conduct cannot be punished criminally * * * the legislative standard may nevertheless apply if it is an appropriate measure for the defendant's conduct.'

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the Legislature has, from the experience of the community, formulated a standard of conduct for automobile dealers who procure insurance for their customers, and prohibited conduct by them which is likely to cause harm. Defendants failed to comply with the formulated standard, which was an appropriate measure for their conduct, and in the absence of legal excuse defendants would therefore be guilty of negligence. Accordingly, the complaint states a cause of action, and it was the duty...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Interinsurance Exchange of Auto. Club of Southern Cal. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1962
    ...and liability extended over other provisions of the Vehicle Code dealing with liability insurance (see, Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal.2d 284, 14 Cal.Rptr. 649, 363 P.2d 881). The pattern is clearly discernible: a desire on the part of the judiciary and the Legislature to not only preve......
  • Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1963
    ...to adopt under the circumstances presented. (See Clinkscales v. Carver, 2 Cal.2d 72, 75, 136 P.2d 777; Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal.2d 284, 287, 14 Cal.Rptr. 649, 636 P.2d 881.) The notice requirement of section 1769, however, is not an appropriate one for the court to adopt in action......
  • Westrick v. State Farm Insurance
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1982
    ...who promises to procure insurance will indeed be liable for his negligent failure to do so (see, e.g., Dana v. Sutton Motor Sales, 56 Cal.2d 284, 287, 14 Cal.Rptr. 649, 363 P.2d 881; Greenfield v. Insurance Inc., 19 Cal.App.3d 803, 810, 97 Cal.Rptr. 164), it does not follow that he can avoi......
  • People v. Velarde
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1962
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT