Van Horne v. Lim

California Court of Appeal

Van Horne v. Lim

64 P.2d 448, 18 Cal. App. 2d 624, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 560

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 21, 1937

DocketCiv. 10150

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 P.2d 448 (Van Horne v. Lim) 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

Van Horne v. Lim, 64 P.2d 448, 18 Cal. App. 2d 624, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. She recovered a judgment against defendant Lim Ben and said defendant appeals.

It is appellant’s contention that “No liability is shown as to Lim Ben. ’ ’ The question presented is that of the sufficiency of the evidence to show that Lim Ben, the appellant, was liable as owner under the provisions of section 1714)4 of the Civil Code.

Appellant, who is a Chinese, purchased the automobile for the use of his son. Appellant testified that his son’s name was Jim Ben Lim but that appellant called him Jim Lim. The automobile was registered in appellant’s name but ap *625 pellant did not drive the ear. At the time of the accident there were several Chinese in the automobile. One of said Chinese, who corresponded in description to appellant’s son, spoke to respondent after getting out of the automobile. He gave his name as Lim Ben and his address as 606 Twenty-fifth Street, Oakland, this being the name and address of appellant. The son left for China before the trial and appellant offered no evidence at the trial. Appellant was called under section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but his testimony throws no light on the subject except to show that the son reported the accident to appellant about two weeks after it had occurred.

We are of the opinion that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment against appellant. It was sufficient to show that appellant’s son, for whose use appellant had purchased the automobile, was riding in appellant’s automobile at the time of the accident and it may be inferred therefrom that either the son or one of the other Chinese, with the consent of the son, was driving said automobile. In either case, appellant was liable under said section 17141,4 of the Civil Code. (Haggard v. Frick, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 392 [44 Pac. (2d) 447].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 20, 1937.

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

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. She recovered a judgment against defendant Lim Ben and said defendant appeals.

It is appellant’s contention that “No liability is shown as to Lim Ben. ’ ’ The question presented is that of the sufficiency of the evidence to show that Lim Ben, the appellant, was liable as owner under the provisions of section 1714)4 of the Civil Code.

Appellant, who is a Chinese, purchased the automobile for the use of his son. Appellant testified that his son’s name was Jim Ben Lim but that appellant called him Jim Lim. The automobile was registered in appellant’s name but ap *625 pellant did not drive the ear. At the time of the accident there were several Chinese in the automobile. One of said Chinese, who corresponded in description to appellant’s son, spoke to respondent after getting out of the automobile. He gave his name as Lim Ben and his address as 606 Twenty-fifth Street, Oakland, this being the name and address of appellant. The son left for China before the trial and appellant offered no evidence at the trial. Appellant was called under section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but his testimony throws no light on the subject except to show that the son reported the accident to appellant about two weeks after it had occurred.

We are of the opinion that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment against appellant. It was sufficient to show that appellant’s son, for whose use appellant had purchased the automobile, was riding in appellant’s automobile at the time of the accident and it may be inferred therefrom that either the son or one of the other Chinese, with the consent of the son, was driving said automobile. In either case, appellant was liable under said section 17141,4 of the Civil Code. (Haggard v. Frick, 6 Cal. App. (2d) 392 [44 Pac. (2d) 447].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on February 20, 1937.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 P.2d 448, 18 Cal. App. 2d 624, 1937 Cal. App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-horne-v-lim-calctapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack