Court Opinion

ID: 9720252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:22:37.384303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:14.398439
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, J.
I dissent. There are cases supporting the majority’s holding (Fenley v. Kristoffersen (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 139 [156 Cal.Rptr. 187]; Dow v. Britt (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 868 [112 Cal.Rptr. 710]; Heves v. Kershaw (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 340 [17 Cal.Rptr. 837]), but they are wrong. The premise is, “The intent of these sections [Veh. Code, §§ 17150 and 17151] is to make it clear that as between the operator and the owner, the primary liability is that of the operator and the liability of the owner is secondary. The owner’s liability is like that of a guarantor as to the [$15,000] joint liability of owner and operator. . . . This is in no way prejudicial to the rights of the injured party as far as the collection of this joint liability of owner and operator is concerned. Such joint liability must be satisfied before application of any payments to the separate and additional liability of the operator beyond the amount of the owner’s liability.” (Heves, supra, at p. 344.) Not prejudicial? Of course it is. We do not know the extent of plaintiff’s damages here, but they apparently exceed $25,000 by a substantial amount.
Nothing in Vehicle Code sections 17150 or 17151 supports the interpretation that they merely create a limited guarantee of the plaintiff’s damages. The first section imposes vicarious liability on an owner for the negligence of a permissive user; the second limits that liability. Nonetheless, the above cited cases have succeeded in bootstrapping the undoubted subrogation right of the owner against the driver into a superior position vis-a-vis the plaintiff. For example; Heves states, “While it might be more convenient for plaintiff to credit the several liabilities of the operator and to keep alive the joint statutory liability of the owner, this would not be consistent with the rights as between owner and operator, particularly the right of recourse given to the owner against the operator [citation].” (Id., at p. 346.) “More convenient” is a very cavalier expression to describe the destruction of a plaintiff’s lawful statutory recovery.
Other courts have not reached this inequitable result on similar facts. For example, Young v. Berry Equipment Rentals, Inc. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 35 *1356[127 Cal.Rptr. 200], after a rather unpersuasive effort to distinguish Dow, holds, “The computation utilized by the trial judge was manifestly unfair. Appellant suffered damages in the sum of $21,866.64. We see no logic or fairness in reducing appellant’s recovery below the statutory liability as long as he does not receive a double recovery .... To permit such a procedure would be to deprive appellant of his right to full compensation for his injuries and would give respondent an unjustified windfall.” (Id., at p. 42.)
Lopez v. Blecher (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 736 [a case we criticized on a different point in Angelus Associates Corp. v. Neonex Leisure Products, Inc. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 532, 539 [213 Cal.Rptr. 403]] is worth examination. There, the driver settled for $200,000 and sought dismissal of the owner’s indemnity cross-complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 877.6. The Court of Appeal affirmed the finding that the settlement was in good faith on the owner’s appeal. If the Fenley-Dow-Heves rule controlled, the court had a far more satisfactory route to resolving the matter. Instead of simply affirming the dismissal of appellant’s cross-complaint, it should have also ordered dismissal of the complaint against her, the settlement being far in excess of the owner’s statutory limit. It did not.
I believe the correct rule is this: “While the liability imposed [by statute] upon the owner of an automobile may be secondary as between such owner and the person operating the car with his permission, it is a primary and direct liability and not a secondary one in so far as the injured party is concerned. It would seem that the main purpose of this section is to make such an owner directly responsible to a person injured through the negligence of an operator driving the car with the owner’s permission, although the [statutes] also contain [] provisions calculated to protect the owner from the results of the operator’s negligence in so far as this may be done between those parties without interfering with the rights of the injured party. ” (Broome v. Kern Valley Packing Co. (1935) 6 Cal.App.2d 256, 261 [44 P.2d 430]; italics added.) In other words, to the extent it is possible, the plaintiff is to be made whole. After that, the vicariously liable owner may pursue the driver for indemnification (even after a good faith settlement by the driver per our decision in Angelus Associates Corp. v. Neonex Leisure Products Inc., supra, 167 Cal.App.3d 532, 539).
The transfer of title question, the other ground supporting the summary judgment, may present a triable issue of fact on one of two theories, either that the transfer may not have physically occurred before the accident or that it was not effective until it was filed with the Department of Motor *1357Vehicles. Plaintiff should have been permitted to complete discovery on these points. I would reverse.