De La Forest v. Yandle
| Decision Date | 02 June 1959 |
| Citation | 340 P.2d 52,171 Cal.App.2d 59 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Charles DE LA FOREST and Mast Lumber Co., Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Fred C. YANDLE, Hugh S. Yandle and William N. Yandle, individually and as co-partners doing business as W. J. Yandle & Co., and Wesley Temple, individually and doing business as Mark Haines Welding Shop, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9449. |
George F. Jansen, San Francisco, for appellants.
Augustus Castro, San Francisco, for respondents Yandle.
Frank W. Finn, Sebastopol, for respondent Temple.
This appeal is from a judgment in favor of respondents following an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the facts may be stated as follows:
Plaintiff-appellant De La Forest was the operator of a truck repair shop. Plaintiff-appellant Mast Lumber Co. owned and operated a truck and trailer. The middle axle of the trailer had become so worn as to require repair. Mast employed De La Forest to repair the axle and he sublet the work of rebuilding and resurfacing the axle to Temple, a welder, and to Yandle, a machinist, both of whom, in the operation of their respective businesses, held themselves out as qualified, equipped, skilled and expert in their crafts. When they had finished welding and machining the axle they returned it to De La Forest as completed and ready for use. Justifiably relying upon their having done their work properly, De La Forest and Mast, without first inspecting the axle, installed it in Mast's trailer. The work of respondents was negligently done and the axle was unsafe for use. Mast used the trailer on the highways and during such use the axle, due to the negligent repair, failed at or near the point where defendants had welded and machined it, with the result that two wheels came off, crossed the highway and struck an automobile being operated by Donald Urban, proximately causing his death. The widow and minor child of Urban filed suit against Mast and De La Forest alleging that the death of Urban had been proximately caused by the carelessness and negligence of Mast and De La Forest 'in the driving, operating, ownership, sale, manufacture, repair, inspection, control and maintenance of said trailer.' These two demanded that Temple and Yandle indemnify and hold them harmless from loss resulting by reason of the death of Urban and the suit by his widow and child; and also demanded that they defend the action. This Temple and Yandle refused to do. Thereupon Mast and De La Forest, in good faith, compromised the Urban action, taking releases in favor of all persons. The amount of the settlement was $45,000 as against a demand in excess of $100,000 and was reasonable.
The complaint states a cause of action. We quote the following from Restatement of Restitution, Sec. 93:
'(1) Where a person has supplied to another a chattel which because of the supplier's negligence or other fault is dangerously defective for the use for which it is supplied and both have become liable in tort to a third person injured by such use, the supplier is under a duty to indemnify the other for expenditures properly made in discharge of the claim of the third person, if the other used or disposed of the chattel in reliance upon the supplier's care and if, as between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co.
...127, 330 P.2d 802; San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. California Bldg., etc., Co., 162 Cal.App.2d 434, 328 P.2d 785; De La Forest v. Yandle, 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 340 P.2d 52; Alisal Sanitary Dist. v. Kennedy, 180 Cal.App.2d 69, 4 Cal.Rptr. 379; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. KPIX Westinghouse Broa......
-
Sanders v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...Cal.Rptr. 376; Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co., supra, 208 Cal.App.2d 367, 382--383, 25 Cal.Rptr. 301, and De La Forest v. Yandle (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 61, 340 P.2d 52.) The railroad claims it cannot be liable as an indemnitor because its negligence was not a proximate cause of the......
-
Link-Belt Co. v. Star Iron & Steel Co.
...against the plaintiff by a third person as being upon a cause of action on an implied promise to indemnify. (De La Forest v. Yandle, 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 61--62, 340 P.2d 52; San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. California Bldg. etc., Co., 162 Cal.App.2d 434, 440, 449, 328 P.2d 785) and the ......
-
People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court
...707; see, e. g., Vegetable Oil Products Co. v. Superior Court (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 252, 257, 28 Cal.Rptr. 555; De La Forest v. Yandle (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 59, 62, 340 P.2d 52.) In the Vegetable Oil case, the Court of Appeal briefly explained the rationale of the settled rule: "If it were ......