Donald v. Garry
| Decision Date | 31 August 1971 |
| Citation | 19 Cal.App.3d 769,97 Cal.Rptr. 191,45 A.L.R.3d 1177 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 45 A.L.R.3d 1177 Robert E. DONALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lee A. GARRY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 37955. |
Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogust, and Lawrence O. De Coster, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.
Lee A. Garry in pro. per.
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained respondent's demurrer to appellant's complaint without leave to amend. We reverse the judgment.
Appellant filed his complaint in the case at bench on September 24, 1970. Respondent is named as a defendant only in the second cause of action. The pertinent portion of the complaint alleges the following. Respondent is an attorney at law admitted to practice in California. In 1966, appellant 'forwarded' to Mutual Credit Bureau (Mutual), a licensed collection agency, a contract debt owed him in the amount of $10,634.40 plus interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum. Through respondent acting as its attorney, Mutual caused an action to be filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court to collect the debt. By reason of respondent's negligence, the action was dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution. By reason of the dismissal, appellant has lost recovery on a valid and collectible claim.
Respondent filed a general demurrer to the second count of the complaint claiming that it fails to state a cause of action and that it shows on its face that the claim alleged is barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the first ground apparently on the theory that respondent, having been retained by Mutual, owed no duty of care to appellant. We conclude that it erred in doing so.
The Restatement Second of Torts provides in section 324A: 'One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.'
The second cause of action of the complaint here considered alleges facts meeting the test of section 324A of the Restatement. Respondent undertook to render services to another (Mutual) which he should have recognized as necessary for the protection of the property of a third person (appellant). Appellant suffered harm in the loss of his collectible account by reason of respondent's negligence in the performance of the undertaking assumed by him. Respondent's failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm; he undertook but negligently failed to perform a duty owed by another (Mutual) to appellant; and there is a fair inference from the facts alleged that the harm suffered by appellant was due to the reliance of another (Mutual) upon respondent's undertaking. Tested by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franko v. Mitchell
...to file suit on a debt who negligently caused the suit to be dismissed, was held liable to the nonclient creditor. Donald v. Garry, 19 Cal.App.3d 769, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1971). In United Leasing Corp. v. Miller, 45 N.C.App. 400, 263 S.E.2d 313, pet. den., 300 N.C. 374, 267 S.E.2d 685, and la......
-
Brooks v. Zebre
...for the collection agency that owed a duty to the account assignor negligently failed to pursue the collection, Donald v. Garry, 19 Cal.App.3d 769, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1971). The key to the establishment of a duty is expected reliance. That is the case here. Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown......
-
Assurance Co. of America v. Haven
...negligence in drafting will]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 229, 74 Cal.Rptr. 225, 449 P.2d 161 [same]; Donald v. Garry (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 769, 771-772, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 [attorney retained by collection agency owed duty to creditor who had submitted debt to agency for collection]; ......
-
Osornio v. Weingarten
...rights under the consortium tort." (Meighan, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1044, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 744; see also Donald v. Garry (1971) 19 Cal. App.3d 769, 772, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 [attorney for collection agent who brought suit on obligation owed duty to creditor/assignor of claim to prosecute act......
-
Attorney Liability to Non-clients
...Allied Financial Services, Inc., supra, note 27; Havens v. Hardesty, 43 Colo.App. 162, 600 P.2d 116 (1979). 40. Donald v. Garry, 19 Cal.App.3d 769, 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1971). But see, Lawson, supra, note 30. 41. 32 Colo.App. 337, 511 P.2d 506 (1973). But see, Bryan & Amidei v. Law, 435 S.W.2d......
-
Lawyer liability to non-clients under the new Restatement of Law Governing Lawyers.
...liable to disinherited beneficiary where probated will contained no legal defect and effectuated testator's expressed intentions). (24.) 97 Cal.Rptr. 191 (Cal.App. (25.) 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 744 (Cal.App. 1995). (26.) 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (Cal. App. 1995). (27.) 41 Cal.Rptr. 2d 573 (Cal.App. 1995).......