Newman v. Larsen

• Decision Date: 19 February 1964
• Citation: 225 Cal.App.2d 22,36 Cal.Rptr. 883
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: John E. NEWMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leslie Brock LARSEN, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 27783.

Page 883

36 Cal.Rptr. 883

225 Cal.App.2d 22

John E. NEWMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leslie Brock LARSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 27783.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Feb. 19, 1964.

Hearing Denied April 15, 1964.

Samson, Goldwasser & Fry and Maurice Rose, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

F. Rodman Woelfle, Venice, and Charles Murstein, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

BURKE, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was convicted in a prior criminal proceeding of assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code, § 245. At the conclusion of trial the information was amended, changing the word 'deadly' to 'dangerous' and defendant was granted probation on conditions which included payment for damages resulting from the injuries. The victim of the assault thereafter brought this civil action for damages for assault and battery for the critical injuries sustained.

Counsel for plaintiff urged the collateral estoppel principle announced in Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Insurance Company, Ltd., 58 Cal.2d 601, 607, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 562, 375 P.2d 439, 442 under which '* * * any issue necessarily decided in a prior criminal proceeding is conclusively determined as to the parties if it is involved in a subsequent civil action,' and moved to reopen the case to permit introduction into evidence of the file of the criminal proceedings in which defendant was convicted. The motion was granted over objection of defendant, the court remarking to counsel for defendant, 'If you have a case which would deny the doctrine of Teitelbaum, then you would have judgment for the defendant.' After submission of the matter, judgment was entered for plaintiff from which defendant appeals.

The court held that the issue of liability of defendant for committing an assault with a dangerous weapon upon the person of plaintiff was established by his former conviction in the criminal proceeding and was binding upon the court in the civil proceeding.

The court gave judgment in favor of plaintiff for $25,000. Finding of fact XVI reads as follows:

'Pursuant to the authority of the case of Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. vs. The Dominion Insurance Company, Ltd., 58 A.C. 615 [58 Cal.2d 601, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439], the [court] received into evidence the criminal file of the case of People vs. Leslie Brock Larsen wherein the defendant herein, Leslie Brock Larsen had been found guilty of violation of penal code 245 of the State of California, and the plaintiff herein, John E. Newman was the victim of said violation. Under the Teitelbaum case, the court ruled that the liability had been determined in the criminal proceedings and the court's findings on liability are based on the finding of guilt of the criminal trial heretofore set forth.'

The court also found the allegations of paragraph V of plaintiff's complaint true (except as to the amount of damages alleged to have been suffered). Paragraph V states, in part: '* * * the defendants [fictitious defendants indicated by the plural] * * * unlawfully, violently and maliciously * * * assaulted the plaintiff with a carbine rifle and shot plaintiff through his right hip * * *. As a proximate result of the assault and battery of defendants [sic], * * * [p]laintiff herein was hurt and injured * * *.'

The judgment ultimately entered represents a reversal of the interim attitude of the trial court as expressed by it in the remarks above quoted. However, such remarks form no part of the judge's findings of fact or conclusions of law and must be disregarded by us. It is only the findings, conclusions and judgment actually entered which are before us for review. (DeCou v. Howell, 190 Cal. 741, 751, 214 P. 444.)

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, prescribed by the...