Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | FOX; ASHBURN |
| Citation | 302 P.2d 665,145 Cal.App.2d 423 |
| Parties | Benjamin N. WYATT and Christine M. Wyatt, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, General Motors Corp., Los Angeles Branch, et al., Defendants, General Motors Corporation, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 21645. |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1956 |
Page 665
v.
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, General Motors Corp., Los Angeles Branch, et al., Defendants,
General Motors Corporation, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1956.
Page 666
[145 Cal.App.2d 424] Lloyd C. Griffith, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Lawler, Felix & Hall, J. Phillip Nevins, Los Angeles, for respondent.
FOX, Justice.
The demurrer of defendant General Motors Corporation to plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiffs purchased a Cadillac from defendant on December 7, 1951, for $4,850.52. This action grows out of its unsatisfactory performance, which developed immediately following delivery.
Plaintiffs' first cause of action is on the theory of negligence. They allege that in the manufacture and assembly of the automobile defendant's employees, through mistake and negligence, caused a piece of brown industrial wrapping paper [145 Cal.App.2d 425] to be sealed in what is known as the breather pipe, thereby internally sealing this pipe and preventing adequate motor ventilation; that as a result thereof the car did not operate 'up to the standard of performance of a Cadillac' but 'operated in an unsatisfactory, substandard and mechanically inefficient
Page 667
manner at all times since the date of sale'; that commencing with the day following the delivery of the automobile, plaintiffs began a series of returns to the service department in an effort to get it put into proper operating condition; that they thus expended $735.12 for parts and mechanical repairs; that defendant's efforts were unfruitful until April 5, 1954, when a service mechanic discovered and removed the paper from the breather pipe; that as a result of defendant's neligence and mistake in assembling the car and its failure to promptly discover the trouble, the car was completely ruined. They further allege demand that defendant put the automobile in condition to operate in accordance with established standards for Cadillac cars and that defendant refused to so repair and condition the vehicle.For their second cause of action plaintiffs allege defendant warranted that the automobile was manufactured and assembled to perform according to established standards of Cadillac performance. This asserted warranty is not alleged to have been in writing. Plaintiffs also allege they relied upon the implied warranty of quality. They then allege the unfitness of the car by reason of the breather pipe being plugged by wrapping paper, and thus charge a breach of warranty.
For their third cause of action plaintiffs allege that after the refusal to repair and recondition the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aas v. Superior Court, Nos. D030218
...is limited to damages for physical injuries and there is no recovery for economic loss alone. (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 426, 302 P.2d 665, disapproved on other grounds in Sabella v. Wisler, 59 Cal.2d 21, 31, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889...." (Seely, supra,......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., Nos. 15894
...for economic losses absent personal injury or property damage. (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division (1956), [92 Ill.App.3d 147] 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665; Trans World Airlines v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1955), 1 Misc.2d 477, 148 N.Y.S.2d 284.) However, even Wyatt, a leading case for t......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., No. 54440
...Cal.Rptr. 113; Crowell Corp. v. Topkis Construction Co. (Del.Super.Ct.1971), 280 A.2d 730; Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division (1956), 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665. See Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965), 63 Cal.2d 9, 403 P.2d 145, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17; Amodeo v. Autocraft Hudson, Inc. (Sup.Ct......
-
Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...interests traditionally have not been entitled to protection against mere negligence. See, e.g., Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Div., 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665, 667 (1956) (no recovery in negligence against manufacturer for loss of value of automobile); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Cur......
-
Aas v. Superior Court, Nos. D030218
...is limited to damages for physical injuries and there is no recovery for economic loss alone. (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 426, 302 P.2d 665, disapproved on other grounds in Sabella v. Wisler, 59 Cal.2d 21, 31, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889...." (Seely, supra,......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., Nos. 15894
...for economic losses absent personal injury or property damage. (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division (1956), [92 Ill.App.3d 147] 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665; Trans World Airlines v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1955), 1 Misc.2d 477, 148 N.Y.S.2d 284.) However, even Wyatt, a leading case for t......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co., No. 54440
...Cal.Rptr. 113; Crowell Corp. v. Topkis Construction Co. (Del.Super.Ct.1971), 280 A.2d 730; Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division (1956), 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665. See Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965), 63 Cal.2d 9, 403 P.2d 145, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17; Amodeo v. Autocraft Hudson, Inc. (Sup.Ct......
-
Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...interests traditionally have not been entitled to protection against mere negligence. See, e.g., Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Div., 145 Cal.App.2d 423, 302 P.2d 665, 667 (1956) (no recovery in negligence against manufacturer for loss of value of automobile); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Cur......