Court Opinion

ID: 9793445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:47:52.627746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:02.978416
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
In this case the jury returned two separate verdicts, each for $5,000, against the defendants, the operator and owner of the automobile which caused the injury. It is conceded that the defendants are jointly liable, a limitation of $5,000 being placed upon the liability of the defendant-owner by statute. (Veh. Code, § 402.) It is said that a several judgment against each defendant, where the defendants are jointly liable, is improper, and that the sole question here is whether defendants suffered prejudice by the form of the verdicts, although there is a discussion to the effect that a judgment for $10,000 cannot be entered against defendant-operator because there is no verdict to support it.
The real question here involved is the proper construction and interpretation of the verdicts rendered. There, is some confusion in the cases as to the role of the jury in applying the $5,000 limitation of liability accorded the owner of a vehicle when the negligence of the one who used it with his consent caused the accident. There are several ways in which a judgment rendered on a verdict in such a case might be drafted and still preserve the limitation for the owner. It could be a judgment against both defendants jointly for the full amount of the damages where that amount is less than $5,000. If it exceeds that sum the judgment could be against both of them for $5,000 and against the operator alone for the amount in excess of $5,000, or it could be against both of them for the full amount with a proviso that the owner was obligated thereunder to the extent of $5,000 only. *211However, the verdict of the jury, that is, the function of the jury, with respect to the limitation, is a different matter. Assuming a case where the operator is driving the ear with the owner’s consent, it necessarily follows that either both of them are liable or neither is. The extent of the jury’s duty is to decide that issue and the amount of damages. It is not concerned with nor should it be instructed upon the limitation of liability of the owner. These principles were settled in Sparks v. Berntsen, 19 Cal.2d 308, 312 [121 P.2d 497], where this court said: ‘ ‘ Here the final verdict was in a single total sum against both defendants in each case. No more was required of the jury. In one trial against two or more defendants jointly liable for the same tort, a separate verdict against each defendant is improper. There should be but one verdict for a single sum against all the defendants jointly liable. (Marriott v. Williams, 152 Cal. 705, 711 [93 P. 875, 125 Am.St.Rep. 87].) Any statutory limitation of liability applicable to any defendant as distinguished from the full liability of other defendants may and should be incorporated in the judgment entered on the verdict. Any limitation of liability of the owner would follow as a matter of law, and that liability the jury could not change.” [Emphasis added.] Thus it follows that if the jury renders a verdict against both defendants for an amount in excess of $5,000 there is no difficulty, for the court, as a matter of law, renders a judgment thereon which protects the limitation of the owner’s liability. The essential issues for the jury—liability and amount of damages—have been determined by them. If the verdict settles those questions it is sufficient. In the instant case the separate verdicts, while not formally proper (there should have been but one verdict against both defendants), did determine those matters. Inasmuch as it returned a verdict against each defendant there can be no doubt that it found them both liable, which it should have done, for both were liable or neither. The only question, therefore, is whether or not those verdicts sufficiently establish the amount of the damages. It should be clear that they reflect a belief that plaintiff’s total damages were $10,000. Otherwise there would not have been the separate awards of $5,000 each against the defendants. It is clear that if plaintiff was to have $5,000 from one defendant and $5,000 from the other, the source of payment has been split but the amount to be received by plaintiff has not. The jury was not given a form of verdict for both defendants jointly and the best it could do was to return *212its verdict in the separate forms. Moreover, we do not have to rely solely upon the interpretation of the verdict on its face, for the affidavits of the jurors show without dispute that they intended to assess damages in the sum of $10,000. It is unimportant that the verdicts were against each defendant separately because the law is clear that a verdict against joint tort feasors must be against them jointly—that there cannot be an apportionment. It is not a matter of concern to the jury. As long as we may ascertain from the verdicts the total amount of the damages, then a judgment may be entered against both defendants without apportionment except to the extent of preserving the limitation on the owner’s liability. Snodgrass v. Hand, 220 Cal. 446 [31 P.2d 198], is analogous to the instant case. There the verdict was against the operator alone for $5,000 and against the operator and owner for $5,000. It was held that, properly construed, the verdict was for $10,000. It is true there was an “and”- between that portion of the verdict against the operator and that against both, but it lends no magic to the picture. It is equally clear from the verdicts here that it was intended to award plaintiff the sum of $10,000.
The foregoing disposes of the statement in the majority opinion that there is no verdict for $10,000 upon which a judgment could be entered. The two verdicts when correctly construed show that there is. It will result in a failure of justice to require this case to be retried with all the expense and endeavor necessary therefor when we know what the jury intended by its verdicts and the matter may be now settled once and for all by simply holding that the judgments should be construed as providing for joint liability for both defendants for $5,000 and several liability of the defendant operator for $5,000, or a total of $10,000 against the latter.
I would, therefore, affirm the judgment.