Stiles v. American Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1955
• Citation: 137 Cal.App.2d 472,290 P.2d 614
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Martha Rachel STILES, as Administratrix of the Estate of Laurel Ann Stiles, Deceased, and Martha Rachel Stiles, Individually, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, as Administrator of the Estate of Dave Holder, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant. William Laverne DUNN, Plaintiff and Respondent and Appellant. v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, as Administrator of the Estate of Dave Holder, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant and Respondent. Civ. 8646.

Page 614

290 P.2d 614

137 Cal.App.2d 472

Martha Rachel STILES, as Administratrix of the Estate of Laurel Ann Stiles, Deceased, and Martha Rachel Stiles, Individually, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, as Administrator of the Estate of Dave Holder, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant.

William Laverne DUNN, Plaintiff and Respondent and Appellant. v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, as Administrator of the Estate of Dave Holder, Deceased, Defendant and Appellant and Respondent.

Civ. 8646.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Dec. 2, 1955.

Burke & Rawles, Ukiah, for respondents.

Rowland R. King and David B. Lombardi, San Francisco, for respondent and appellant Dunn.

Forrest A. Betts of Betts, Ely & Loomis, Los Angeles, Mannon, Brazier & Bell, Ukiah, James A. Williams, Los Angeles, of counsel, for appellant American Trust Co.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

These are appeals in consolidated actions for damages arising out of an airplane accident in which the respondents Stiles and Dunn Suffered serious personal injuries and the infant daughter of Mrs. Stiles was instantly killed. Dave Holder, deceased, was the owner and pilot of the plane in which respondents were riding when it fell shortly after taking off at the Willits Airport.

Respondent Stiles and her baby lived with her mother in Willits. The deceased, Mr. Holder, was a friend of the family. He lived in San Mateo but owned a ranch near Willits, upon which one of the respondent Stiles' married sisters and her husband lived. This sister testified that when Holder came to Willits it was customary for her to use her mother's car to drive him around but that he never paid, nor was expected to pay, for such service. On the day of the accident Holder flew from Belmont to Willits. Upon arrival he telephoned respondent Stiles and asked if her sister was there. Respondent Stiles testified: 'I told him no. And then I asked if I could help him, or what he wanted? And he said that he wanted my sister to come up and take him around town some. And I asked him if he wanted me to, if he needed me to come and do it? And he said yes. And he told me if I would that he would take me in the airplaine, take me for a ride in the airplane afterwards. And so I told him I would be there in a few minutes.' Respondent Stiles then took her small baby and drove her mother's car down town to meet Holder, who then drove to the residence of Mr. Stansberry, whom he wished to see about trading some horses. Respondent Stiles and the baby accompanied him. Mr. Stansberry was not at home, and after a few minutes' conversation with his wife, Holder returned to the car where respondent Stiles and the baby were waiting. He then started to drive to the airport. En route they overtook respondent Dunn who was on foot. He had been out to call upon respondent Stiles, but, of course, had not found her at home. Holder stopped the car and picked up respondent Dunn whom he had never met. The two were introduced by respondent Stiles and they all proceeded to the airport, where respondent Stiles testified Holder asked her to go up with him. Respondent Stiles then asked Holder 'if there was enough air' to also take respondent Dunn, and Holder replied that there was. After this conversation, Holder and the respondents boarded the plane. Respondent Stiles held the baby. Holder started the motor, taxied down the runway, and took off. Shortly after leveling off at an altitude of about 75 feet, the plane fell to the earth and crashed into a tree. Holder and the baby were killed and the respondents were injured.

Each of the respondents brought an action for damages against the appellant American Trust Company as the administrator of the estate of Dave Holder, deceased, based upon the alleged negligence, wilful misconduct, and intoxication of Holder. The two actions were consolidated for trial before a jury. The trial court directed verdicts in favor of the defendant on the causes of action predicated on intoxication and on respondent Dunn's cause of action founded on negligence. On other counts the jury disagreed and a mistrial was declared. However, the parties stipulated that it be deemed that the jury had performed its duty and returned directed verdicts. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of appellant American Trust Company on the causes of action based on intoxication and on respondent Dunn's cause of action based on negligence. It is conceded on this appeal that the trial court properly directed verdicts on the causes of action based on intoxication, but respondent Dunn has appealed from that portion of the judgment in favor of appellant American Trust Company on his cause of action based on negligence. We will first consider this appeal.

Dunn contends that the trial court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that he was a guest and therefore barred from maintaining an action based on negligence, by virtue of Section 15 of the State Aeronatics...