Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale
| Decision Date | 25 June 1976 |
| Citation | 130 Cal.Rptr. 690,59 Cal.App.3d 509 |
| Parties | Karen Lee WINKELMAN, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. CITY OF SUNNYVALE, Cross-Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 37456. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Jarvis & Irvine, Perry A. Irvine, Palo Alto, for appellant.
Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley & Wagner, Michael J. Brady, Redwood City, for respondent.
James Carl sued appellant Karen Lee Winkelman for damages in connection with an auto accident. Winkelman cross-complained against respondent City of Sunnyvale; the court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer by the city, and the cross-complaint was dismissed. The present appeal ensued.
On February 12, 1974, appellant was driving westbound on the Central Expressway in Sunnyvale when she was struck from behind by a pickup truck; appellant's car was propelled into an opposite stream of traffic and a head-on collision with James Carl resulted. The pickup truck left the scene. Public Safety officers from the City of Sunnyvale came and investigated the accident.
Twenty-five minutes after the collision, the driver of the pickup truck visited the Department of Public Safety, and reported that he possibly had been involved in an auto accident on the Central Expressway. The officer on duty radioed an officer who was still at the scene of the accident; the investigating officer, not yet having interviewed appellant, reported that no pickup truck was involved. The officer at headquarters allowed the driver of the pickup to leave without securing any identifying information.
Appellant asserts that respondent City of Sunnyvale was negligent in permitting the driver of the pickup truck to leave the Department of Public Safety without securing identification and that as a result of this negligence she sustained damages in the frustration of a valid cause of action for her own injuries and of a defense against James Carl's suit which she would have been able to develop had the police officer not failed to obtain the name and identification of the driver of the pickup truck.
Appellant contends that respondent breached a duty of care owed her. First, appellant asserts that respondent owes a duty toward those involved in auto accidents, to properly and carefully investigate such accidents. That argument is unsound. Police officers have the right, but not the duty, to investigate accidents. (McCarthy v. Frost (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 872, 109 Cal.Rptr. 470.) Second, appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v. Hoek
...Cal.Rptr. 823; Beauchene v. Synanon Foundation, Inc. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 342, 347, 151 Cal.Rptr. 796; Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 509, 512, 130 Cal.Rptr. 690; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, supra, § 554, p. 2821.) 2 A corollary of this principle is that an in......
-
Williams v. State of California
...the state highway patrol has the right, but not the duty, to investigate accidents (Veh.Code, § 2412; 4 Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 509, 511, 130 Cal.Rptr. 690; McCarthy v. Frost (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 872, 876, 109 Cal.Rptr. 470) or to come to the aid of stranded moto......
-
Posey v. State
...existed and that appellant has not stated a cause of action." (Id., at p. 10, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5.) In Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 509, 130 Cal.Rptr. 690, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege a special relationship giving rise to a duty......
-
Stout v. City of Porterville
...identity of the thieves who had wounded and stripped the victim and left him half dead." (Ibid.; see also Winkelman v. City of Sunnyvale (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 509, 130 Cal.Rptr. 690, cited with approval in Williams v. State of California, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 26, 192 Cal.Rptr. 233, 664 P.2......