Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1958 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Jeseph W. FAIRFIELD, Plaintiff, Respondent and Appellant, v. AMERICAN PHOTOCOPY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant, Appellant and Respondent. Civ. 22346. |
Ethelyn F. Black, Los Angeles, for plaintiff, respondent and appellant Fairfield.
Alexander H. Schullman, David S. Smith, Abe Mutchnik, Los Angeles, for defendant, appellant and respondent company.
This is the second appeal in an action for an injunction and for compensatory and punitive damages, occasioned by defendant's unauthorized use of plaintiff's name in advertising its product. Defendant had judgment of nonsuit upon the first trial. That judgment was reversed by this court. Fairfield v. American Photocopy, etc., Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 82, 291 P.2d 194. Retrial was to the court, which made findings and entered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $3,100, consisting of $1,500 compensatory damages and $1,600 punitive damages. The court also granted a permanent injunction against the use of plaintiff's name in the conduct of defendant's business. Defendant made a motion for new trial, which was ordered granted unless plaintiff agreed to remit the $1,600 punitive damages and ordered denied if plaintiff filed the remission. Plaintiff filed a remission of the judgment in that amount. He appeals from the order requiring him to remit the punitive damages; defendant appeals from the judgment for compensatory damages.
Plaintiff is an attorney at law. Defendant is an Illinois corporation doing business in California; it manufactures and sells a photocopy machine known as the 'Apeco Systematic Auto-Stat.' Plaintiff was the only witness. Defendant offered no evidence. From the testimony of plaintiff, which was spread out exceedingly thin over 100 pages of direct and cross-examination, we glean the following facts: Plaintiff is licensed to practice law in New York and California. He has lived in the latter state since 1946. He has a wife and two children. His wife is an attorney at law and her professional name is Ethelyn Black. They maintain offices in Beverly Hills. In the summer of 1953, plaintiff bought a photostat machine from defendant which he found unsatisfactory; after considerable correspondence he returned it a month later and received a refund of his money.
In July 1954, an attorney named Lieberman called plaintiff's attention to a circular issued by defendant advertising the machine. It listed 'Joe W. Fairfield, Los Angeles' with a list of seventeen others as among 'thousands of leading law firms using the Apeco Auto-Stat.' No one else was listed from Los Angeles and none from Beverly Hills. Plaintiff had not authorized the use of his name. Lieberman made it clear that he suspected that plaintiff had received money for the use of his name, which plaintiff denied. A man who said he was a lawyer called by phone to inquire about the machine. A female lawyer called him to inquire about the machine and when told of plaintiff's experience with it, expressed doubt that the company would have listed plaintiff's name unless he was a satisfied user. She talked for several minutes and plaintiff was 'getting a bad time' explaining to her. Another attorney who read the circular called him. Plaintiff had 'a bad time with him.' An attorney named April, whom plaintiff knew quite well, asked him pointblank how much he would ask to endorse a 'dog product.' Other attorneys, Harvey Silvert, Bentley Ryan and Sidney Traxler, asked him about the machine and plaintiff stated 'Well, they wanted to know where I am earning more money by endorsing products than I am from the practice of law * * * and whether I found it profitable or lucrative.' Plaintiff claimed that this good- natured bantering wounded his feelings; He was worried for fear the State Bar would cite him to explain his conduct in endorsing a product. This anxiety lasted for several hours until he had examined his correspondence, which disclosed that he had not consented to the use of his name. A lawyer named Silbert asked him if he had also endorsed another machine. A couple of his friends twitten him over the use of his name, pretending to believe that in return the company had not only singled him out as a leader in his profession but had also paid him money. Altogether there were six or eight people who questioned plaintiff about the machine. No one accused him of unethical conduct. No one criticized him. His professional standing was not impaired in the minds of his friends.
Defendant contends that the judgment is excessive. We regard the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Motschenbacher v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, 72-1419.
...138 Cal.App.2d 807, 292 P.2d 600 (1956); Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equip. Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 82, 291 P.2d 194 (1955); 158 Cal.App.2d 53, 322 P.2d 93 (1958); Stryker v. Republic Pictures Corp., 108 Cal.App.2d 191, 238 P.2d 670 (1951); Cohen v. Marx, 94 Cal.App.2d 704, 211 P.2d 320 (19......
-
Miller v. National American Life Ins. Co.
...any right to appeal the judgment or conditional order. (185 Cal.App.2d at p. 680, 8 Cal.Rptr. 514.) In Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equip. Co., 158 Cal.App.2d 53, 322 P.2d 93, a new trial was conditionally granted unless plaintiff agreed to remit the entire punitive damages award. Plaint......
-
White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
...actor Peter Lorre objected); Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equip. Co., 138 Cal.App.2d 82, 291 P.2d 194 (1955), later app. 158 Cal.App.2d 53, 322 P.2d 93 (1958) (use of attorney's name in advertisement); Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co., 38 C.2d 273, 239 P.2d 630 (1952) (use of photograph of ......
-
Templeton Feed and Grain v. Ralston Purina Co.
...District Court of Appeal: Conlin v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1919) 40 Cal.App. 743, 182 P. 71, and Fairfield v. American Photocopy Equip. Co. (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 53, 322 P.2d 93, we do not find them persuasive authority. In Conlin plaintiff brought an action for damages for the taki......