GIMENEZ v. RISSEN

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

GIMENEZ v. RISSEN et al.

SANCHEZ v. SAME.

Civ. 9567, 9568.

Decided: March 20, 1936

Peter J. Youngdahl and G. G. Glick, both of Los Angeles, for appellants. Nourse, Betts & Jones (by Forrest A. Betts), of Los Angeles, for respondents.

It is ordered by the court, of its own motion, that the opinion heretofore filed in the above-entitled matters on February 27, 1936, be modified as follows:

That portion of the opinion, in the first paragraph on page 10 [296 of 55 P. (2d)] reading, “We conclude that the court below erred in taking the case from the jury and directing a verdict for defendants. For this reason the judgment herein appealed from must be reversed,” is stricken; and in lieu thereof the following is ordered inserted: “we conclude that the court below erred in taking the case from the jury and directing verdicts for the minor defendant driver, Robert Rissen. For this reason the judgments herein appealed from in favor of the minor defendant, Robert Rissen, must be reversed.”

That portion of the opinion appearing in the second paragraph on page 10, and reading as follows: “Though the judgments must be reversed for the foregoing reasons, we nevertheless feel impelled to consider the second proposition advanced on this appeal, in connection with which respondents urge that because section 62(b) of the California Vehicle Act (St.1929, p. 522) provides that the signer of a minor's application for an operator's license is liable for the ‘negligence’ of the minor, no recovery can be had against such signer for any ‘willful misconduct’ as distinguished from the ‘negligence’ of such minor in the operation of such vehicle. This we deem necessary for the guidance of the trial court upon a retrial of these cases,” is stricken; and in lieu thereof the following is inserted: “We come now to a consideration of the appeal by plaintiffs from the judgments in favor of Mrs. William R. Rissen, mother of the minor defendant, and the signer of said minor's application for an operator's license. Respondents urged that because section 62(b) of the California Vehicle Act (St.1923, p. 532, as amended by St.1929, p. 522) provides that the signer of a minor's application for an operator's license is liable for the ‘negligence’ of the minor, no recovery can be had against such signer for any ‘wilful misconduct’ as distinguished from the ‘negligence’ of such minor in the operation of such vehicle.”

The following language, appearing at the conclusion of the opinion, on page 14 [297 of 55 P.(2d)], reading as follows: “The judgments herein appealed from are reversed, and the causes remanded for new trials,” is stricken, and in lieu thereof the following is inserted: “The judgments in favor of defendant Robert Rissen are reversed, and the causes remanded for new trials. The judgments in favor of defendant Mrs. William R. Rissen are affirmed.”

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard