I have two small children which is of the ages of 4 and 6, and Jack Campbell has a baby born in July, and another little boy 2 years old, so when I left, I told him if they got sick or anything, to use the car, and that was the only way the car could be used. Campbell was working at the time.Īs to the use of the Plymouth car while he was away, Doyle testified: That wasn`t left for him to use. Campbell`s wife knew where he placed the key. On August 29, he and his wife left for Pennsylvania in his car due to the death of his father, and he left the Plymouth car, owned by the company, in his private garage at his home and put the key to it in a drawer in the house. The respondent company furnished him with a Plymouth car.
768 civilization v install#
According to his deposition, taken prior to his death, his duties were to install engines in recycling and compressure plants and he was subject to call into several western states.
768 civilization v trial#
Prior to the trial of this action Doyle died. Defendant Campbell was a stepson of Doyle and lived with his wife and two children at the home of Doyle.
Doyle, living near Visalia, was in the employ of respondent company as service superintendent under Hagemen. Its executive officer of the Pacific Coast, one Hagemen, is located in Los Angeles. The head office of respondent Clark Brothers, Incorporated, is in New York. Leather Supply Co., 69 Cal.App.2d 729, 735, but argues that in the instant case there is no conflict on the question involved that the evidence on that subject was therefore a question of law because it was undisputed and was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury as to the defendant corporation, and the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Leake, 87 Cal.App.2d 636, 640 and Broadfoot v. By its answer it denied Campbell had its permission and consent to drive the car.Īt the outset, counsel for plaintiff, in all fairness, states that he is not unmindful of the general rule of law that appellate courts will not disturb on appeal an order granting or denying a new trial where there is a conflict in the evidence, citing such cases as Sweeley v. There was no contention made during the trial that Campbell was the employee or agent of defendant corporation. Defendant Clark Brothers, Incorporated, moved for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to show permissive use of the Plymouth car by Campbell.
Defendant Campbell did not move for a new trial nor appeal from the judgment, and it has become final as to him.
768 civilization v plus#
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Campbell for $16,300.26, and a limited recovery against defendant Clark Brothers, Incorporated, for $5,000 plus $1,000 property damage. The question of the negligence of Campbell and the amount of damages is not involved on this appeal. As a result of the collision plaintiff`s left arm had to be amputated at the shoulder. He suddenly pulled out from behind to pass it and struck plaintiff`s car while so doing. Campbell was driving a Plymouth automobile owned by defendant Clark Brothers, Incorporated, a New York corporation, south on Highway 99 behind a Model A Ford. On September 11, 1945, plaintiff Lee Barcus was driving his Chevrolet pick-up north on Highway 99, about one-half mile south of Tulare. CAMPBELL et al., Defendants CLARK BROS., INC.
0 kommentar(er)
