 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curry v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County11/18/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO.
No. E012847
1993.CA.40972 ; 20 Cal. App. 4th 180; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 495
Decided: November 18, 1993.
BETTY JEAN CURRY ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, RESPONDENT; RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.
Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. 268794, Jeffrey Giarde, Judge.
Roberts & Morgan and Arthur K. Cunningham for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and Karen A. Feld for Real Parties in Interest.
Opinion by Dabney, Acting P. J., with Hollenhorst and McKinster, JJ., Concurring.
Dabney
In this matter we are called upon to decide whether a tortfeasor seeking partial equitable indemnity may claim the benefit of Civil Code section 1714.1 , which imposes financial responsibility upon the parents of an errant minor. We hold that the statute's provisions do run in favor of the third party tortfeasor, and are not limited to the injured party. We therefore conclude that the trial court correctly overruled petitioners' demurrer to real party's cause of action seeking equitable indemnity based on that statute.
The facts and procedural history of the case may be briefly summarized. A complaint was filed by Latashia Washington in which she alleged that she was sexually molested by cross-defendant David Curry, a minor. At the time of the alleged molestation, Ms. Washington--confined to a wheelchair due to cerebral palsy--was a student at Eisenhower High School, operated by petitioner Rialto Unified School District. The complaint sought damages primarily on the theory that the district, through its defendant employees Gayle Rellstab and Edna Herring, failed to control David Curry and failed to protect plaintiff from him.
Plaintiff did not name David Curry or any members of his family in this action. The only defendants were, and apparently are, the district and its employees Rellstab and Herring.
Defendants (hereinafter sometimes simply District) then filed a cross- complaint against David Curry (therein referred to as Davey) and his parents, petitioners here Betty Curry and David Curry, setting forth general demands for indemnity and a more specific claim based on the parents' allegedly negligent supervision of their son. Summary judgment was granted on this cross-complaint, but District was given leave to amend to set forth a cause of action for indemnity based on section 1714.1.
The amended cross-complaint included some of the general claims for equitable indemnity as to which summary judgment had been granted, but also added a new fifth cause of action for indemnification based on section 1714.1. The Currys successfully demurred to all causes of action save the
1714.1 claim. They seek mandate from this court to compel the trial court to sustain the demurrer to that cause of action as well, and thus eliminate them from the litigation.
Discussion
Initially, we reiterate once again that we do not routinely afford plenary review to rulings on demurrers. "Appellate courts simply do not have the time or resources to police law and motion rulings on the pleadings through the mandamus power and, absent unusual circumstances, decline to do so
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|