Fox v. Schuster

California Court of Appeal

Fox v. Schuster

123 P.2d 56, 50 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 939

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 6, 1942

DocketCiv. 13154

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 P.2d 56 (Fox v. Schuster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. Schuster, 123 P.2d 56, 50 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD (W. J.), J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which she suffered when the automobile in which she was riding collided with defendants’ automobile. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,821. Defendants have appealed from the ensuing judgment.

At the time of the collision plaintiff was riding in her own car, which was being driven by one Klinepeter with her consent. The trial court instructed the jury that “the driver’s negligence, if any, may not be imputed to the plaintiff, . . . therefore, you shall find that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” The only issue which requires determination on this appeal concerns the contention of defendants that the court erred in giving this instruction.

Since the filing of the briefs a decision was rendered by our Supreme Court in Milgate v. Wraith, 19 Cal. (2d) 297 [121 P. (2d) 10], It was there held that by virtue of the 1937 amendment of subdivision (a) of section 402 of the Vehicle *363 Code the negligence of one who is driving an automobile with the permission of the owner is imputable to the owner in an action by the owner against the driver of another car. The decision in the Milgate case makes necessary a reversal of the judgment in the ease now before us. It is so ordered.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOOD (W. J.), J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which she suffered when the automobile in which she was riding collided with defendants’ automobile. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,821. Defendants have appealed from the ensuing judgment.

At the time of the collision plaintiff was riding in her own car, which was being driven by one Klinepeter with her consent. The trial court instructed the jury that “the driver’s negligence, if any, may not be imputed to the plaintiff, . . . therefore, you shall find that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” The only issue which requires determination on this appeal concerns the contention of defendants that the court erred in giving this instruction.

Since the filing of the briefs a decision was rendered by our Supreme Court in Milgate v. Wraith, 19 Cal. (2d) 297 [121 P. (2d) 10], It was there held that by virtue of the 1937 amendment of subdivision (a) of section 402 of the Vehicle *363 Code the negligence of one who is driving an automobile with the permission of the owner is imputable to the owner in an action by the owner against the driver of another car. The decision in the Milgate case makes necessary a reversal of the judgment in the ease now before us. It is so ordered.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P.2d 56, 50 Cal. App. 2d 362, 1942 Cal. App. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-schuster-calctapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack