Collie v. Aust
| Decision Date | 17 August 1959 |
| Citation | 342 P.2d 998,173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793 |
| Court | California Superior Court |
| Parties | 173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793 Jack COLLIE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William J. AUST, Willaford Doiron, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. A. 9825. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California |
Thomas M. Lynam, Los Angeles, for appellants.
James F. Ball, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Five men, including plaintiff Collie and defendants Aust and Doiron, had planned a hunting trip. Doiron was not able to go on the trip, but he loaned plaintiff his jeep and plaintiff left his automobile with Doiron for Doiron's use. While driving to the camp site, Collie allowed Aust to drive the jeep. Aust negligently operated the jeep and Collie was injured. Collie sued both the driver, Aust, and the owner, Doiron, and received judgment against both. Defendants appeal from the judgment.
The plaintiff claims and the court found that plaintiff was a passenger. The evidence that Doiron loaned his automobile to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff left his automobile with Doiron for his use proves that plaintiff was the bailee of the jeep. Baugh v. Rogers, 1944, 24 Cal.2d 200, 148 P.2d 633, 152 A.L.R. 1043. Neither was the plaintiff the guest of Aust. He did not accept a ride from Aust. His situation is similar to that of an owner who has been held not to be the guest of the driver while riding in his own car. Ahlgren v. Ahlgren, 1957, 152 Cal.App.2d 723, 725, 313 P.2d 88.
The plaintiff is not barred from recovering against the driver, Aust, by reason of the fact that as bailee he had the right to control the driver. The plaintiff was not guilty of any actual negligence himself and the negligence of Aust is not imputed to him in this action. Ledgerwood v. Ledgerwood, 1931, 114 Cal.App. 538, 300 P. 144; Roberts v. Craig, 1954, 124 Cal.App.2d 202, 268 P.2d 500, 43 A.L.R.2d 1146.
We turn to the question of the liability of the defendant owner, Doiron. The judgment against him is based on permissive use, Vehicle Code, § 402, subsection (a) of which provides: 'Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for the death of or injury to person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of such motor vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner, and the negligence of such person shall be imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages.' The answer to our problem is found in subsection (d) which provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Degenstein v. Ehrman
...which is at issue. In holding that the daughter was not a guest as a matter of law the court cited with approval Collie v. Aust, 173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793, 342 P.2d 998, as * * * In that case, the plaintiff borrowed a jeep from the owner to take on a hunting trip. While he was on such trip, ......
-
Baldwin v. Hill, 14908
...not disclose a Michigan case which has decided this question. The case which seems to be most nearly in point is Collie v. Aust, 173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793, 342 P.2d 998 (1959). In that case, the plaintiff borrowed a jeep from the owner to take on a hunting trip. While he was on such trip, pl......
-
Ahlgren v. Ahlgren
...Gledhill v. Connecticut Co., supra, 121 Conn. 102, 183 A. 379; Naphtali v. Lafazan, 7 Misc.2d 1057, 165 N.Y.S.2d 395; Collie v. Aust, 173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793, 342 P.2d 998. Counsel has conceded negligence on the part of defendant. Considering the other concessions made and the testimony of......
-
Krantz v. Garmise
...731), it is clear that the statute does not apply where, as here, there was no host and guest relationship. Collie v. Aust, 173 Cal.App.2d Supp. 793, 794, 342 P.2d 998 [Superior Ct.] is sufficiently in point to be decisive. In this case, 'Five men, including plaintiff Collie and defendants ......