Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp.

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtMOLINARI
Citation121 Cal.Rptr. 768,48 Cal.App.3d 376
PartiesNorma LEASMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, N. J. Province, individually and doing business as Pacific Aircraft Service, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 33052.
Decision Date22 May 1975

Page 768

121 Cal.Rptr. 768
48 Cal.App.3d 376
Norma LEASMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, a corporation, N. J. Province, individually and doing business as Pacific Aircraft Service, Defendants and Respondents.
Civ. 33052.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
May 22, 1975.

[48 Cal.App.3d 378]

Page 769

J. Adrian Palmquist, Alameda, for plaintiff and appellant.

Jerald R. Cochran, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, for defendant and respondent Beech Aircraft Corporation.

Ericksen, Ericksen, Lynch, Mackenroth & Arbuthnot, Inc., Preston N. Ericksen, Oakland, for defendant and respondent N. J. Province; Richard G. Logan, Oakland, of counsel.

MOLINARI, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment granting defendants' motion for a summary judgment. 1 The issue presented is whether the trial court properly granted the motion. 2

[48 Cal.App.3d 379] A complaint for damages was filed by plaintiff against defendants alleging that on May 10, 1970, while during as a passenger on a Beech Travelaire airplane a trim tab broke requiring the airplane to make an emergency landing, proximately causing injuries to plaintiff. The complaint alleged that plaintiff sustained 'injury to her body and shock and injury to her nervous system and person,' and that she 'became sick, sore, lame, and disabled; all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause said plaintiff great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering.' The complaint alleges that the trim tab broke due to the negligent act or omission on the part of defendants in designing, manufacturing, servicing and testing the Beech Travelaire.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of their motion they submitted the depositions of plaintiff, Dr. James A. Sawtell, plaintiff's physician, Dr. Burton White, plaintiff's psychiatrist, and the declaration of the attorney for defendant Province.

In her deposition plaintiff testified that she did not sustain any physical injury as a result of the aircraft landing incident. Dr. Sawtell stated that plaintiff did not at any time complain to him about any injuries resulting from the incident. He testified that prior thereto he had been treating plaintiff for nervousness and depression, that plaintiff's condition has not worsened but improved since the incident. Dr. Sawtell stated that he never treated plaintiff for any injuries resulting from the aircraft landing incident.

Dr. White testified he first saw plaintiff two weeks prior to the filing of her complaint and that at that time she suffered 'no physical injury of any kind.' He stated plaintiff told him her husband suffered a loss as a result of the aircraft landing incident and that she agreed to go along with the suit in order to help him recover what he had lost on the plane. Dr. White testified that in his opinion plaintiff's emotional distress was a result of marital strife which had existed over the years. He also attributed plaintiff's emotional problems in part to menopause and alcohol consumption.

Plaintiff was sent an interrogatory which asked, 'List separately and describe all of the injuries and complaints, whether

Page 770

physical, mental or emotion, which you claim to have sustained in this subject incident. . . .' She answered, 'Nervous condition that has interferred with my work, friends and marriage.' When asked if she could explain the meaning of her answer to the interrogatory quoted above, she stated, 'No, I don't know unless it is all the trouble I have caused since the incident [48 Cal.App.3d 380] happened. I am being blamed with it, anyhow.' She stated these were troubles she had caused since the incident and went on to explain that these consisted of marital difficulties.

In her counterdeclaration plaintiff stated that as a result of the May 10, 1970, incident she sustained severe shock and disturbance to her nervous system. She stated further that as '. . . a direct consequence of the disturbance and severe shock I received on May 10, 1970, I have suffered headaches more severe than any I have ever known. My arms and hands ache at times, and on occasions, my back stiffens up preventing sleep. In addition, during the past year, I have lost in excess of twenty-eight pounds due to my extremely nervous condition.'

The purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to discover, through the media of affidavits, whether the parties possess evidence which demands the analysis of trial. (Saporta v. Barbagelata, 220 Cal.App.2d 463, 468, 33 Cal.Rptr. 661; Kramer v. Barnes, 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 445, 27 Cal.Rptr. 895.) 'A summary judgment will stand if the supporting affidavits state facts sufficient to support a judgment and the counteraffidavits do not proffer competent and sufficient evidence to present a triable issue of fact.' (Saporta v. Barbagelata, supra, at p. 468, 33 Cal.Rptr. at p. 663; Burke v. Hibernia Bank, 186 Cal.App.2d 739, 743--744, 9 Cal.Rptr. 890.)

Interrogatories and depositions may be used in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment. (Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715, 725, 299 P.2d 257; Vallejo v. Montebello Sewer Co. Inc., 209 Cal.App.2d 721, 734, 26 Cal.Rptr. 447; Nizuk v. Georges, 180 Cal.App.2d 699, 709, 4 Cal.Rptr. 565; Kramer v. Barnes, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d 440, 444, 27 Cal.Rptr. 895.) Admissions contained in depositions and interrogatories are admissible in evidence to establish any material fact. (Evid.Code, § 1220; see Bonebrake v. McCormick, 35 Cal.2d 16, 18--19, 215 P.2d 728;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 practice notes
  • Brown v. Bleiberg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 27, 1982
    ...Cal.3d 434] Hospitals (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 813, 822-823, 155 Cal.Rptr. 763; see also Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 383, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) 3 They argue that plaintiff was put on notice of their negligence by the fact that the pain persisted for over 12 years, he......
  • Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. A040678
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 1989
    ...Inc. v. Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 791, 245 Cal.Rptr. 44. But Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 382, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768, phrased the holding in broad language that should be accepted with caution: "Accordingly, when a defendant can est......
  • Justus v. Atchison
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 1975
    ...injury by shock, through the senses, to the nervous system and such shock is a physical injury. (See Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 381, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) We hold, contrary to the trial court, that under Dillon the plaintiff fathers sufficiently alleged physical injur......
  • Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins., No. B100170
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1997
    ...adduced ... which present triable issues of fact is to be made in the light of the pleadings." (Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 380, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) "However, the court may only examine the pleadings in order to define the issues of which summary judgment dispo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
81 cases
  • Brown v. Bleiberg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 27, 1982
    ...Cal.3d 434] Hospitals (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 813, 822-823, 155 Cal.Rptr. 763; see also Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 383, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) 3 They argue that plaintiff was put on notice of their negligence by the fact that the pain persisted for over 12 years, he......
  • Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. A040678
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 1989
    ...Inc. v. Great American Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 791, 245 Cal.Rptr. 44. But Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 382, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768, phrased the holding in broad language that should be accepted with caution: "Accordingly, when a defendant can est......
  • Justus v. Atchison
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 1975
    ...injury by shock, through the senses, to the nervous system and such shock is a physical injury. (See Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 381, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) We hold, contrary to the trial court, that under Dillon the plaintiff fathers sufficiently alleged physical injur......
  • Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins., No. B100170
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1997
    ...adduced ... which present triable issues of fact is to be made in the light of the pleadings." (Leasman v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 376, 380, 121 Cal.Rptr. 768.) "However, the court may only examine the pleadings in order to define the issues of which summary judgment dispo......
  • 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