Thomas v. Doorley
| Decision Date | 23 November 1959 |
| Citation | 346 P.2d 491,175 Cal.App.2d 545 |
| Parties | Bruce THOMAS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles DOORLEY and Roger Wood, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 6209. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Heinly, Heinly & Tarr, by Dale H. Heinly, Santa Ana, for appellants.
Benjamin W. Henderson, Palm Springs, and Carl Cress, Jr., Blythe, for respondent.
The plaintiff and respondent brought action for damages, including punitive damages, against the defendants for assault and battery. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded general damages in the amount of $2,000, plus $93 medical expenses and $500 punitive damages. From this judgment the defendants appeal. The trial court found, in substance, that on May 21, 1957, at approximately 11 p. m. in the city of Palm Springs, the defendants wilfully and unlawfully committed an assault and battery upon the plaintiff. It was further found that immediately thereafter the defendants transported the plaintiff, against his will, to a remote and isolated locality in Riverside County and again wilfully and unlawfully committed an assault and battery upon him. The court found that as a proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiff suffered physical injury, physical pain, mental suffering and injury to his business and personal reputation in the sum of $2,000. It was further found that plaintiff had incurred necessary medical expense in the amount of $93, and was entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $500.
The defendants claim as grounds for reversal that appellant Doorley used no more force than was necessary to protect himself from an assault and that a finding to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. It is further contended that there was no evidence sufficient to support the finding of the trial court as to the amount of damage, and that such amount was grossly excessive. It is further claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of the trial court that respondent was entitled to punitive damages, and further that the award of $500 was grossly excessive.
There was an irreconcilable conflict of the testimony as to the happenings on the night of the alleged assault, the plaintiff claiming in substance that it was an unprovoked, unwarranted and malicious assault, and the defendants asserting that the plaintiff assaulted the defendant Doorley, who used no more force than necessary to protect himself, and that the defendant Wood took no part in the transaction.
Under such circumstances it is for the trial court to determine the conflicts in the evidence and to determine the facts therefrom. The findings of the trial court will not be disturbed upon appeal where they are supported by substantial evidence. Moss v. Smith, 181 Cal. 519, 185 P. 385; Harper v. Markarian, 131 Cal.App.2d 771, 281 P.2d 305. The findings of the trial court, supported by the evidence of one witness, may not be held contrary to the evidence although several witnesses testify to the contrary. Thom v. Stewart, 162 Cal. 413, 122 P. 1069.
Briefly stated, the evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff and accepted as true by the trial court, is to the effect that plaintiff was indebted to the defendant Doorley in the sum of $1,000, borrowed about a month previously. Doorley appears to have been rather persistent in his efforts to collect the money and plaintiff testified that defendant Doorley had made threats against him. On the night in question defendants waited in the vicinity of plaintiff's residence. They were in a pick-up truck which was driven by defendant Wood. When plaintiff stopped his automobile in front of his home defendants requested him to get in the truck to go and get a cup of coffee, which invitation plaintiff declined. Thereupon, according to his testimony, he was assaulted and struck by defendant Doorley and was forced into the truck. Doorley then directed Wood to drive out into the country, which was done. It is plaintiff's testimony that when they arrived at an isolated spot on the desert he was dragged from the truck, given a severe beating by Doorley, and that thereupon the defendants left in the truck, leaving plaintiff where he had been beaten.
It is true that defendants gave a vastly different account of the affair. However, there is nothing inherently impossible or unbelievable in plaintiff's story. The trial court heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, and was in much better position to judge the truth of the story. The testimony thus given and accepted as true by the trial court establishes the cause of action alleged beyond controversy.
Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten about the face, resulting in a bruised,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael R. v. Jeffrey B.
...court stated: "While a defendant may be held liable in tort for actively aiding or encouraging a wrongdoer (See Thomas v. Doorley (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 545, 550 ), it is essential that the defendant's own conduct was tortious. The particular defendant who is to be charged with responsibilit......
-
Coffman v. Kennedy
...the collision." While a defendant may be held liable in tort for actively aiding or encouraging a wrongdoer (see Thomas v. Doorley (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 545, 550, 346 P.2d 491), it is essential that the defendant's own conduct was tortious. The particular defendant who is to be charged with......
-
Hood v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
...Section 3294, must involve unfair practices. If the claim does not, Section 3345 would not be available. See, e.g., Thomas v. Doorley, 175 Cal.App.2d 545, 346 P.2d 491 (1959) (applying Section 3294 to an assault and battery claim); Maheu v. Hughes Tool Co., 569 F.2d 459 (9th Or. 1977) (appl......
-
Jaffray v. Hill
...v. Rybka, supra; Christensen v. Frankland, 324 Ill.App. 391, 58 N.E.2d 289; Blue v. Christ, 4 Ill.App. 351; Thomas v. Doorley, 175 Cal.App.2d 545, 346 P.2d 491 (Cal., 1959). The remaining point to be considered with respect to Hill is the contention that plaintiff's counsel in his argument ......