Opinion

Armenta v. Churchill

  • 42 Cal. 2d 448
  • 267 P.2d 303
  • 1954 Cal. LEXIS 183
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Mar 5, 1954
Status
Published
Author
Schauer
On the bench
Carter, Schauer, Spence
Cited by
67 cases

evidence that is relevant only to negligent entrustment is inadmissible when owner admits agency so that vicarious liability is established

How later courts described this case

  • evidence that is relevant only to negligent entrustment is inadmissible when owner admits agency so that vicarious liability is established
  • involving the defendants Churchills, a wife and husband employer-employee team

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.

It is my view that the opinion prepared for the District Court of Appeal by Presiding Justice Shinn, and concurred in by Justices Wood (Parker) and Vallée (reported in (CaLApp.) 258 P.2d 861 ), adequately discusses and correctly resolves all issues of law presented by this appeal. For the reasons therein stated I would affirm the judgment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.