Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp.

Decision Date23 December 1964
PartiesConstant D. DU FRENE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. KAISER STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Kaiser Engineers, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 7366.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, James W. Baldwin and James M. Radnich, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Thompson & Colegate, Arthur W. Kelly, Jr., Riverside, Long & Levit, David C. Bogert, San Francisco, and Irving L. Halpern, Los Angeles, for respondents.

FINLEY, Justice pro tem.

This appeal is by defendant Kaiser Engineers from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs Constant D. Du Frene and Erving L. Du Frene, individually and doing business as Du Frene Brothers, a copartnership, against defendant Kaiser Engineers, a corporation, but in favor of Kaiser Steel Corporation. Hereinafter plaintiffs-respondents will be referred to as 'Du Frene,' defendant-respondent Kaiser Steel Corporation as 'Kaiser Steel' and defendant-appellant as 'Kaiser Engineers.' Under consideration herein also is a motion to dismiss the appeal as to it made by defendant and respondent Kaiser Steel.

The action was brought by Du Frene against Kaiser Engineers and Kaiser Steel, which are two separate and distinct corporations, Kaiser Engineers being a division of Henry J. Kaiser Company. In it, plaintiffs seek to recover compensation in the sum of nearly $9,000 for damages to and loss of use of a certain 60-ton truck crane under an asserted oral contract of bailment to defendants Kaiser Steel and Kaiser Engineers.

The incident involved here occurred on November 6, 1957 at the Kaiser Steel plant in Fontana. Du Frene operated a crane rental business and owned the 60-ton crane involved. On May 9, 1957, Du Frene entered into a written contract with Kaiser Steel and Kaiser Engineers wherein Du Frene agreed to furnish them a 30-ton crane. On July 23, 1957 this contract was amended by a writing wherein Du Frene agreed to furnish an additional 35-ton crane. This writing will be referred to as 'Change Order No. 1.' By a similar writing dated November 15, 1957 and bearing the date November 4, 1957 as the date of approval by Du Frene, the contract was again amended. In this writing Du Frene agreed to furnish the 60-ton crane here involved. This writing will be referred to as 'Change Order No. 2.'

On November 3, 1957 the 60-ton crane was delivered by the manufacturer to Du Frene at the Kaiser Steel plant in Fontana, California. It was first used there on November 6, 1957. At that time Constant Du Frene, one of the brothers, and Roy Barber, a factory representative of the manufacturer, were with the crane and accompanied its movements from about 7:00 a. m. up to approximately 10:30 a. m. when the boom collapsed during an attempted lift of a 55-ton steel beam.

The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury. Upon judgment for plaintiff being rendered by the court against defendant Kaiser Engineers only said defendant appealed from the judgment and named as a respondent Kaiser Steel. A motion to dismiss the appeal as to it was thereupon filed in this court by Kaiser Steel on the ground that: 'Appellant is not a party aggrieved by the judgment of the court in favor of the defendant and respondent, Kaiser Steel Corporation, a corporation within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure, section 938.' The stated point of the motion is that: 'A defendant who is individually liable is not aggrieved by the exoneration of a co-defendant.' In support of this point the following cases are cited by the moving party which are convincing in support of the motion: Click v. Southern Pacific Co., 113 Cal.App. 528, 298 P. 839; Rankin v. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 73 Cal. 96, 15 P. 57. (See also Fran-Well Heater Co. v. Robinson, 182 Cal.App.2d 125, 5 Cal.Rptr. 900, and Guy F. Atkinson Co. v. Consani, 223 A.C.A. 373, 35 Cal.Rptr. 750.)

The motion by Kaiser Steel to dismiss the appeal as to the judgment in its favor is therefore granted.

In support of its judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Kaiser Engineers, the court made the following findings:

'3. On or about November 4, 1957, Plaintiffs entered into an oral contract of bailment with Defendants Kaiser Engineers and Henry J. Kaiser Company, whereby said Sixty-Ton Lima crane was leased, rented and delivered to said Defendants at Fontana, California, for an indefinite period and for an agreed consideration; and on and subsequent to said date and at all times herein relevant, including November 6, 1957, said Defendants were bailees for hire of said crane and were in exclusive possession and control thereof.

'4. On or about November 6, 1957, at Fontana, California, the Defendants Kaiser Engineers and Henry J. Kaiser Company negligently controlled, supervised, directed and otherwise managed the operation of said crane, which said negligence of said Defendants constituted active and affirmative negligence; and said negligence constituted a breach by said Defendants of said contract of bailment in that said Defendants failed to use ordinary care for the preservation in safety and good condition of said crane and the parts thereof.

* * *

* * *

'7. Neither the Plaintiffs nor any of their agents or employees were guilty of any negligence in the operation or maintenance of said crane or in any other respect, regarding the buckling and collapse of the boom on said crane or the damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result thereof on or about November 6, 1957.

'8. The document described as Change Order No. 2 to Rental Agreement No. F76-55111-8008, and dated November 15, 1957, which document was introduced into evidence as Defendants' Exhibit 'C,' was executed by the Plaintiffs subsequent to November 22, 1957, and was not intended by the parties thereto to affect any of the rights or obligations which accrued to such parties as a result of the damages occurring to Plaintiffs' said crane on or about November 6, 1957.

'9. The document described as Rental Agreement No. F76-55111-8008, dated May 9, 1957, and introduced into evidence as Defendants' Exhibit 'A,' did not apply to the Plaintiffs' said crane or the loss thereto on or about May 6, 1957; and in any event neither the provision thereof entitled 'Mechanical Warranty, Maintenance and Damage' nor the provision thereof entitled 'Indemnity' was intended by the parties to said agreement to apply to relieve Defendants Kaiser Engineers or Henry J. Kaiser Company from liability for its own active or affirmative negligence that was a proximate cause of the damage to Plaintiffs' said property, and therefore neither of said provisions applied to the Plaintiffs' said loss that occurred on or about November 6, 1957.'

Appellants urge the following points for reversal:

'I. The trial court erred in finding an oral contract.

'II. The trial court erred in finding a bailment.

'III. The plaintiffs did not sustain their burden of proof.

'IV. The trial court erred in not finding the plaintiffs negligent.

'V. The trial court erred in not finding that the defendants were released from liability.'

The complaint herein alleged an oral contract of bailment of the 60-ton crane to defendants. Defendants in their answers denied the allegation of oral bailment, attached copies of the original written contract and the two written change orders as exhibits and plead them as an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs-respondents failed to deny the genuineness and due execution of these instruments under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, section 448, and in their brief state: 'Plaintiffs do not deny the genuineness and due execution of said agreement.' Their position is, however, that:

'Thus whether or not the written Agreement applied to the loss in question was for the trial court to determine and such a determination was not precluded by plaintiffs' implied admission of genuineness and due execution under Code of Civil Procedure, section 448.'

The pleadings and admission just outlined places squarely before us the initial question of whether the trial court was legally justified in finding an oral bailment in the light of an admitted written agreement between the parties which specifically alludes to and purports to cover the 60-ton crane rental.

The findings of the trial court relative to the conduct of the parties surrounding the execution of the writings are not subject to question here if those findings are supported by any competent evidence. On this point the decisions are legion and require no specific citation of authority. However, where the genuineness and due execution of a writing are admitted by the parties and its status as a valid agreement is not under attack, the interpretation of the writing then becomes a matter of law in which an appellate court is not bound by the interpretation of the trial court. (Jenkins v. Valley Oil Co., 226 A.C.A. 69, 37 Cal.Rptr. 714; Meyer v. State Board of Equalization, 42 Cal.2d 376, 267 P.2d 257; Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 131 P.2d 825; Moore v. Wood, 26 Cal.2d 621, 160 P.2d 772; Western Coal & Min. Co. v. Jones, 27 Cal.2d 819, 167...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Kashmiri v. Regents of University of Cal.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 Noviembre 2007
    ...leading to the execution of a contract may be considered to ascertain its true meaning (Civ.Code, § 1647; DuFrene v. Kaiser Steel Corp. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 452, 457, 41 Cal.Rptr. 834), "but these circumstances cannot be considered for the purpose of creating undertakings contrary to the s......
  • National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. County of Riverside
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 1996
    ...happening of the specified event. (Paratore v. Scharetg (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 710, 713, 128 P.2d 560; Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 452, 457-458, 41 Cal.Rptr. 834.) In general, substantial compliance is the governing test for determining whether statutory requirements ......
  • Kiva Health Brands LLC v. Kiva Brands Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 6 Septiembre 2019
    ...MPI Reply at 5.KBI correctly responds that a backdated agreement can be valid. See KBI MPI at 4 (citing Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 231 Cal. App. 2d 452, 458, 41 Cal.Rptr. 834 (1964) ("a party of a contract may retroactively adopt prior acts or fix retroactive dates of execution for a c......
  • Rabinowitch v. California Western Gas Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 Diciembre 1967
    ...relating to prior negotiations may be used to resolve ambiguities in the language of a contract. (Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 452, 457, 41 Cal.Rptr. 834.) In the present case, the language used in the lease creates an ambiguity regarding the computation of rent. If ......
  • 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