McDonald v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco, S
| Decision Date | 29 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Citation | 275 P.2d 464,43 Cal.2d 621 |
| Parties | Thornton McDONALD, Individually and d/b/a Golden Gate Truck Rental Co., and West Coast Truck Rental Co., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, in and for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Honorable Herbert G. Kaufman, Judge thereof, Honorable Martin Mongan, County Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco, and Christopher S. Miesen and Cecillia S. Miesen, Respondents. F. 19085. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Keith, Creede & Sedgwick and Scott Conley, San Francisco, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Fitz-Gerald Ames, Sr., Julian Brewer, and Harold A. Galloway, San Francisco, for real parties in interest.
Petitioner, a resident of Oregon, is in the business of renting trucks and trailers to members of the public. Many of his vehicles are stationed and registered in California and rented to the public from depots maintained by petitioner's agents in this state. Plaintiff or his son-in-law rented one of petitioner's trucks from his agents in Redwood City to transport a load of furniture to their home in San Francisco. While plaintiff was unloading the truck, which was parked partially on the street and partially on the sidewalk, he was injured when a rack on the truck broke away from its supports. Plaintiff and his wife brought an action for damages against petitioner and his agents alleging that his injuries were caused by a defective condition of the truck and that petitioner or his agents were negligent in maintaining the truck and in renting it for immediate use in a defective condition. Petitioner was served as a nonresident pursuant to the provisions of section 404 of the Vehicle Code, and he appeared specially to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court. That court determined that the service was valid, and petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of prohibition.
Prohibition is a proper remedy if the trial court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner. Allen v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.2d 306, 309, 259 P.2d 905. Since no question is raised with respect to compliance with the procedural requirements of section 404, the only issue presented is whether petitioner may be served under that section in plaintiff's action.
Section 404(a) provides:
'The acceptance by a nonresident of the rights and privileges conferred upon him by this code or any use of the highways of this State as evidenced by the operation by himself or agent of a motor vehicle upon the highways of this State or in the event such nonresident is the owner of a motor vehicle then by the operation of such vehicle upon the highways of this State by any person with his express or implied permission, is equivalent to an appointment by such nonresident of the director or his successor in office to be his true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all lawful processes in any action or proceeding against said nonresident operator or nonresident owner growing out of any accident or collision resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle upon the highways of this State by himself or agent.'
Petitioner contends that the statute is inapplicable on the grounds that unloading is not part of the operation of a vehicle and that the vehicle was not being operated 'by himself or agent' at the time of the accident. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that unloading constitutes part of the operation of a vehicle, that it is sufficient to permit service if the vehicle is being operated with the express or implied permission of the owner, and that, in any event, petitioner's agents operated the vehicle within the meaning of the statute when they rented it in a defective condition.
The obvious purpose of section 404 is to make amenable to suits in the courts of this state those nonresidents who may incur liability in the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of this state. What constitutes operation within the meaning of the statute must be determined in the light of this objective. It should be noted at the outset that we are not here concerned with the owner's imputed liability under section 402 of the Vehicle Code for the negligence of those using or operating his vehicle with his express or implied permission. Petitioner is liable, if at all, because he or his agents were negligent in renting a defective truck for use upon the highways of this state, and if such renting constituted operation within the meaning of the statute, it is immaterial whether or not petitioner might also be amenable to service on the ground that the truck was being operated with his permission when the accident occurred.
Although the meaning of the word 'operation' in section 404 has not been litigated in this state, in other contexts, contrary to decisions in other states, see, e. g., O'Tier v. Sell, 252 N.Y. 400, 403, 169 N.E. 624; State ex rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 112 Mont. 253, 114 P.2d 1047, 1051; Brown v. Cleveland Tractor Co., 265 Mich. 475, 479, 251 N.W. 557, it has been interpreted to include more than the actual physical driving of a vehicle on the highway. Sutton v. Tanger, 115 Cal.App. 267, 270, 1 P.2d 521; Lundquist v. Lundstrom, 94 Cal.App. 109, 111-112, 270 P. 696; Bosse v. Marye, 80 Cal.App. 109, 118, 250 P. 693, see also, Union Tank Line Co. v. Richardson, 183 Cal. 409, 412, 191 P. 697. The renting of a vehicle for immediate use clearly constitutes the initiation of its operation and, in the event the vehicle is defective, the creation of an unreasonable risk of harm to the lessee and third parties. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. Crawford
...amenability to suit in the state is a responsibility arising from an individual's domicile in the state]; McDonald v. Superior Court (1954) 43 Cal.2d 621, 623, 275 P.2d 464 [purpose of former Vehicle Code section permitting substituted service upon director of Department of Motor Vehicles w......
-
Peterson v. U-Haul Co.
...the highways of Nebraska when a lessee tows a trailer owned by it. Plaintiff relies on Rose v. Gisi, supra, McDonald v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 621, 275 P.2d 464 (Cal.1954), and Bowman v. Atlantic Baggage & Cab Company, 173 F.Supp. 282 (N.D.Fla. In Rose v. Gisi, supra, two employees were ......
-
Schefke v. Superior Court, In and For City and County of San Francisco
...added.) The only case in this state considering the meaning of the words 'operation * * * upon the highways' is McDonald v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.2d 621, 275 P.2d 464. There a resident of Oregon was engaged in California in the business of renting trucks and trailers. The plaintiff rented ......
-
Nero v. Ferris
... ... Record No. 790982 ... Supreme Court" of Virginia ... Dec. 4, 1981 ... \xC2" ... at a street intersection in San Francisco. She sustained an injury to her lower back and ... the plaintiff filed a damage suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, In and For the City and County of San Francisco, against Gleason ... by the case law of California, see McDonald v. Superior Court, 43 ... Cal.2d 621, 275 P.2d ... ...