Forman v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 17 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 36961,36961
• Citation: 163 N.W.2d 894,183 Neb. 715
• Parties: Edward FORMAN, Appellant, v. Earl ANDERSON, Appellee.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 894

163 N.W.2d 894

183 Neb. 715

Edward FORMAN, Appellant, v. Earl ANDERSON, Appellee.

No. 36961.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 17, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A purchaser who receives possession of a motor vehicle without obtaining the certificate of title thereto, as required by our statutes, acquires no title or ownership therein.

2. The purpose of the act relating to transfers and titles to motor vehicles is to provide a means of identifying motor vehicles, to ascertain the owner thereof, to prevent theft of motor vehicles, and to prevent fraud.

3. A certificate of title to a motor vehicle is generally conclusive evidence in this state of ownership of the vehicle.

4. The contributory negligence of a wife operates to bar recovery of damage by both husband and wife for negligent injury to an automobile owned by them jointly.

5. When an automobile is owned jointly and one of the two co-owners entrusts its use to the other, any negligence of the owner driving the automobile is imputed to the other owner in an action brought by the owners as plaintiffs against a third party for property damage to their jointly owned automobile.

6. Where one common owner makes arrangements for the other owner to drive for both, the former is liable for the driver's negligence.

Robert M. Snell, Lyle C. Winkle, Columbus, for appellant.

Ray C. Simmons, Fremont, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH and McCOWN, JJ., and HUBKA and GARROTTO, District Judges.

GARROTTO, District Judge.

The appellant, Edward Forman, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, commenced this action in the district court for Platte County, Nebraska, to recover damages to his 1963 Rambler automobile and for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's wife, Barbara Forman, who at the time of the collision was operating said automobile in a northerly direction on Twenty-ninth Avenue in Columbus, Nebraska.

Defendant Earl Anderson was operating his 1962 Ford automobile in a westerly direction on Twenty-seventh Street at the time of the collision between the two cars at the intersection of Twenty-seventh Street and Twenty-ninth Avenue in the City of Columbus, Nebraska, on December 24, 1965.

Defendant Anderson filed a cross-petition charging the plaintiff's wife with negligence of a degree which would defeat her recovery and charging further that the negligence of Barbara Forman was imputed to her husband, the pliantiff herein.

Both parties waived trial by jury and the cause was tried to the court. After hearing the evidence, the court on November 24, 1967, found the defendant was negligent in the operation of his automobile and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff's wife. The court also found that plaintiff's wife was also negligent, the her negligence contributed to the accident, and that such negligence was more than slight when compared with the defendant's negligence.

The court on December 7, 1967, entered judgment for the defendant on plaintiff's petition and for the plaintiff on defendant's cross-petition. The court dismissed both the petition and cross-petition.

On February 7, 1968, the court overruled plaintiff's motion for new trial. Plaintiff appeals to this court.

As a basis for reversal of the judgment of the district court, plaintiff asserts that said court erred in the following respects: (1) In finding that an innocent nonnegligent plaintiff's cause of action for loss of consortium, expenses, and damages is barred by the contributory negligence of his spouse; (2) in declaring a certificate of title to a motor vehicle is conclusive as to ownership; and (3) in failing to determine the plaintiff's interest in the 11963 Rambler.

The evidence among other things discloses that the plaintiff, Edward Forman, purchased the 1963 Rambler car in question in July of 1963; that at the time of its purchase Barbara Forman was not present; that only the plaintiff was present; and that the record title was placed in the names of Edward and/or Barbara Forman. In fact, it was agreed by the parties at the trial that the record title was in Edward and/or Barbara Forman. The inference that the title was ordered placed in the names of Edward and/or Barbara Forman, at the request of plaintiff, Edward Forman, is therefore reasonable and is supported by the evidence.

There was evidence from both the plaintiff and his wife, Barbara Forman, that the funds used to purchase said Rambler automobile were funds inherited by plaintiff from his father and that none of said funds came from Barbara. However, there was also evidence that the parties had a joint bank account and that the funds used were withdrawn by check from said joint account. All expenses such as automobile insurance, fuel, and repairs were also paid from said account.

All of the foregoing evidence was apparently offered by plaintiff for the purpose of showing that in spite of the fact that title was in both plaintiff and his wife, that in truth and in fact, the ownership of the automobile was in plaintiff only, and therefore not having been in the car either as driver or passenger at the time of the collision he would be entitled to recover resulting damages.

The parties agreed at the trial that the automobile was being used in a family purpose.

This Court has adhered to a strict interpretation of statutes pertaining to the ownership of motor vehicles.

In Turpin v. Standard Reliance Ins. Co., 169 Neb. 233, 99 N.W.2d 26, this court said: 'The purpose of the act relating to transfers and titles to motor vehicles is to provide a means of identifying motor vehicles, to ascertain the owners thereof, to prevent theft of motor vehicles, and to prevent fraud.

'A certificate of title to a motor vehicle is generally conclusive evidence in this state of the ownership of the vehicle.'

It seems the plaintiff is endeavoring to come within the exception created by the word 'generally.' The act of the plaintiff in placing the title in the names of both himself and his wife was done freely and voluntarily by the plaintiff. There was no showing of a mistake of fact, or of any coercion or fraud. There is no valid reason for eliminating or removing Barbara Forman's name from the title nor is there any showing that it was ever the intention of the plaintiff that he was to be the sole owner of the car. The entire trnasaction was the usual everyday situation whereby a husband or wife or both make a purchase of a home, household furniture, or other personal property for the common use of the family.

Section 60--105, R.R.S.1943, provides among other things: 'No person * * * acquiring a motor vehicle * * * shall acquire any right, title, claim, or interest in or to such motor vehicle * * * until he shall have had issued to him a certificate of title to such motor vehicle * * *. No court in any case at law or in equity shall recognize the right, title, claim, or interest of any...