Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division
| Citation | 302 P.2d 665,145 Cal.App.2d 423 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1956 |
| 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. |
Lloyd C. Griffith, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Lawler, Felix & Hall, J. Phillip Nevins, Los Angeles, for respondent.
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 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 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 they served a written notice of rescission of the contract of purchase and sale on defendant; offered to return the automobile, and demanded the return of the purchase price but that defendant rejected their notice of rescission. Attached to the complaint is a purported copy of this notice. It is dated in August, 1954.
It is thus apparent that plaintiffs have attempted to state a cause of action on the theory of (1) negligence in the manufacture and assembly of the automobile; (2) breach of warranty, and (3) for restoration of the purchase price.
Defendant demurred, inter alia, on general grounds and that each cause of action was barred by section 339, subdivision 1, Code of Civil Procedure, that is, by the two year statute of limitations. As previously noted, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. We have concluded the ruling was correct.
First Cause of Action.
Defendant's manufacture and assembly of the automobile manifestly preceded plaintiffs' ownership of it or any privity of contract between them. Under such circumstances defendant's duty was confined to the exercise of reasonable care to see that the car was so manufactured and assembled as to be free from defects which might be reasonably expected to produce bodily injury or damage to other property. Nebelung v. Norman, 14 Cal.2d 647, 654, 96 P.2d 327; Kalash v. Los Angeles Ladder Co., 1 Cal.2d 229, 34 P.2d 481. The complaint alleges no breach of such duty, nor any injury or damage within the categories last mentioned. It is therefore plain that plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action on the theory of negligence on the part of the manufacturer.
Second Cause of Action.
In this cause of action plaintiffs appear to be relying on both an express warranty and an implied warranty under Civil Code section 1735. In either case, of course, this cause of action is based upon an alleged breach of warranty and necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aas v. Superior Court
...liability 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...." (See......
-
Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
...economic 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, In......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co.
...442, 102 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......
-
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. National Tank Co.
...did not allow recovery in negligence for economic losses absent personal injury or property damage. (Wyatt v. Cadillac Motor Car Division (1956), 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 l......