Sadberry v. Griffiths
| Decision Date | 26 April 1961 |
| Citation | 191 Cal.App.2d 610,12 Cal.Rptr. 773 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Billy J. SADBERRY, Freeda F. Sadberry, Betty A. Banks, a Minor, by Herman L. Banks, her guardian ad litem, and Kenneth W. Wilson, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Leonard Earl GRIFFITHS, Defendant, Marvin Griffiths, Rex Griffiths, and Griffiths Implement Co., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 6539. |
Chinello & Chinello, Fresno, for appellants.
Twohig, Weingarten & Haas, Seaside, and Richard M. Schnal, Burlingame, for respondents.
This is an appeal by certain defendants from a judgment for plaintiffs on account of personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident.
Viewing the evidence, as we must, in a light favorable to the judgment (Brewer v. Simpson, 53 Cal.2d 567, 583[1-2], 2 Cal.Rptr. 609), a brief outline of the facts shown by the record before us is as follows: Defendants Leonard Earl Griffiths (hereinafter called 'Leonard'), Marvin Griffiths and Rex Griffiths are brothers. Marvin and Rex Griffiths are partners residing and doing business in the State of Texas under the name Griffiths Implement Company. Marvin, Rex and Griffiths Implement Company are the sole appellants herein and will be hereinafter grouped together under the name 'Company' in the singular. Leonard, on December 26, 1956, the date of the accident here under consideration, was driving a 1953 Mercury automobile purchased and registered in the State of Texas under the name 'Griffiths Implement', which is admittedly identical with the business partnership named Griffiths Implement Co. in the pleadings. Leonard's name did not appear on the registration certificate. There is no evidence that any other name appeared on the registration certificate. Leonard was operating the car with the written permission of Company. A letter was written on behalf of Company to show permission to Leonard to operate the Mercury car, stating said car was covered by Company insurance but that it was the property of Leonard.
Leonard, plaintiff Billy J. Sadberry, hereinafter called 'Billy', and Kenneth W. Wilson, hereinafter called 'Wilson', were serving in the United States Marine Corps at Moffett Field, California. Freeda F. Sadberry, hereinafter called 'Freeda' is the wife of Billy, and Betty A. Banks, hereinafter called 'Betty', is her sister. Billy and Freeda (with their infant son) and Betty wished to visit Billy's parents in Santa Ana, California, and Wilson wished to visit his parents at nearby Norwalk, California. Billy and Wilson talked to Leonard about making the trip and taking with them Billy's family. Billy and Wilson offered to pay gasoline, oil, meals, lodging expenses, and to have Billy's father, who operated an automobile repair shop, repair the transmission in Leonard's car while at Santa Ana. Leonard accepted, and the group were on the trip in said 1953 Mercury with Leonard driving when the accident happened which caused the injuries complained of.
Trial was had before court sitting without a jury. The primary points of dispute at the trial and which remained subjects of sispute on this appeal, were whether or not plaintiffs were passengers for hire, and not guests; scond, whether or not Company was the owner of the Mercury automobile; and third, whether or not Leonard was driving with Company's permission. The trial court, in effect, found as to such matters that plaintiffs were passengers for hire, and not guests; that Company was the owner of the Mercury automobile which Leonard was then driving; that Leonard was driving with the consent of Company; that he was not driving as the agent of Company in the course and scope of employment; that he was driving negligently and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries complained of. Judgment was rendered for all plaintiffs, against Leonard in amounts which aggregated a total sum of $16,515.35, and against Company in the amount of $10,000 on its statutory liability under Vehicle Code, section 402 (now secs. 17150 and 17151). The individual amounts were graded as to Company in the proportion that $10,000 bears ratio to $16,515.35. Company appeals.
The sole grounds of appeal are, first, that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that Company was the owner of said Mercury automobile; second, that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding that plaintiffs were passengers for hire, and not guests.
Appellants, on their first point contend that under the rules of evidence as administered by the courst of Texas the presumption of ownership arising from registration is completely obliterated and vanishes from the case in the face of positive contradictory evidence, and that such contradictory evidence was present in the case at bar, citing Knops v. Ordorica, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 454; Empire Gas & Fuel Co. v. Muegge, 135 Tex. 520, 143 S.W.2d 763; and other Texas cases.
The cases cited do hold that the registration does raise a prima facie rebuttable presumption of ownership and that in the face of positive contrary evidence such presumption disappears. They do, however, hold also that it is a 'true presumption'. Apparently, from a perusal of these cases, the substantive law of Texas on ownership is not different in any material respect from the law of California, nor is there any substantial difference on the presumption of ownership from registration. The only difference to be found lies in the probative weight given the presumption before the trial court. We are unable to agree with appellants that the rules of procedure in the courts of Texas in this respect can be controlling in the courts of California in the case of an accident which happened in California wherein the rights of the parties are tried beffore the courts of California.
It is clear that registration does, under the laws of Texas, raise the prima facie presumption of ownership and that, as was said in the Muegge case, supra, this is a 'true presumption'. In this respect it is identical with California. As was said in Sayles v. Peters, 11 Cal.App.2d 401, 407, 54 P.2d 94, 98:
That this is the established rule generally followed throughout the United States is hardly open to question. 11 Cal.Jur.2d 201; 15 C.J.2d 995[22i]; Am.Jur. 521; Restatement, Conflicts of Laws, 594.
The rule in California is also clear that conflicting adverse testimony does not blot out or nullify the presumption so as to take away from the trier of fact the right and duty to weigh one against the other. Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co., 212 cal. 540, 549, 299 P. 529; Standard Oil Co. of California v. Houser, 101 Cal.App.2d 480, 488 , 225 P.2d 539; Rody v. Winn, 162 Cal.App.2d 35, 39, 327 P.2d 579; Estate of Nidever, 181 Cal.App.2d 367, 380, 5 Cal.Rptr. 343. Other authorities in California cited by appellants merely hold that the presumption is not conclusive.
Furthermore, the testimony produced by Company was susceptible of construction by the trial court in support of, rather than contrary to, the presumption. The trial court was not compelled to believe all of the testimony produced by Company. This testimony showed that one of Company helped to negotiate the purchase of the car; that Company advanced at least a part of and possibly the entire purchase price of the car; that the car was deliberately and intentionally taken in the name of Company; that Company considered it to be covered by the business insurance; that it was on some occasions used on Company business; that Leonard, when at home, worked on Company business; that Leonard was on leave of absence from the business; that no effort was ever made at any time to have the registration transferred to Leonard; that the $700 claimed to have belonged to Leonard actually came from shipments of grain by Company and apparently was never in the possession of or name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Morse
...Milkovich v. Bune, 371 Pa. 15, 89 A.2d 320, 322(5); Cook v. Faria, 73 Nev. 295, 318 P.2d 649, 650-651(2-4); Sadberry v. Griffiths, 191 Cal.App.2d 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 773, 777(6); Ray v. Hanisch, 147 Cal.App.2d 742, 306 P.2d 30, 34(8); Albrecht v. Safeway Stores, 159 Or. 331, 80 P.2d 62, 65(4)......
-
Lubeck v. Lopes
...v. Southern Pac. Co., 45 Cal.2d 244, 250, 288 P.2d 868; Gillespie v. Rawlings, 49 Cal.2d 359, 364, 317 P.2d 601; Sadberry v. Griffiths, 191 Cal.App.2d 610, 616, 12 Cal.Rptr. 773; Clapp v. Hester, 169 Cal.App.2d 558, 559, 337 P.2d 525; Follansbee v. Benzenberg, 122 Cal.App.2d 466, 471, 265 P......
-
Vitec Elecs. Corp. v. Veris Indus.
...law which gives or declares the right." (World Wide Imports, Inc. v. Bartel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1012; see Sadberry v. Griffiths (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 610, 614 [the forum's law applies to evidentiary issues, admissibility and evidentiary presumptions, despite choice of law provision]......
-
Neuser v. Britto
...distinguished from must, constitute compensation for the ride has been established by numerous cases. (See: Sadberry v. Griffiths (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 610, 616-617, 12 Cal.Rptr. 773; Roberts v. Craig (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 202, 211, 268 P.2d 500, 43 A.L.R.2d 1146; Fedler v. Hygelund (1951) ......