Court Opinion

ID: 9884133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:39:53.64073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.898043
License: Public Domain

Weintraub, C. J.
(concurring). I believe there was an offer within the meaning of the statute. The answer admitted every allegation pertinent to liability. That being so, the statement of the amount of disability necessarily was an admission of liability in the stated amount. An offer to pay is plainly implicit in the admission. The addition of “we offer” would ha/ve added nothing of legal consequence. With or without those words, respondent could have amended if the facts warranted that course. The petition and answer are streamlined forms prepared by the Division rather than the litigants. There is no question addressed to the specific subject of “offers.” It seems to me that when the approved form is completed and reveals the amount of undisputed liability, it would exalt mere form to require an explicit statement of what is necessarily implicit.
I join in the balance of the majority opinion.
Proctor and Hall, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.
Weintraub, C. J., and Proctor and Hall, JJ., concurring in result.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Sohettino—7.
For reversal—None.