Lindgren

Plaintiff Peter Lindgren appeals an order granting defendant Baker Engineering Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. 1 We affirm.

I

Peter Lindgren brought suit against Kenton and Sue Martin and Baker Engineering Corporation based on an automobile accident in which Lindgren was allegedly injured. 2 The accident occurred on March 1, 1983, and involved Lindgren’s vehicle and an automobile driven by Sue Martin. The Martins’ car was purchased from Baker Engineering pursuant to an *1353 installment sale contract under which the final payment was due March 1, 1983, the date of the accident.

Baker Engineering moved for summary judgment, alleging as undisputed material facts (1) that Baker Engineering delivered endorsed registration and ownership certificates to Kenton Martin on March 1, 1983, prior to the accident and (2) as an alternative ground for summary judgment, that the Martins’ insurance carrier paid Lindgren $25,000 in settlement. Lindgren opposed the motion on the basis that (1) there were “controverted facts regarding when the . . . transfer of the certificate of ownership and the certificate of registration of the subject vehicle actually took place” and (2)…

I dissent. There are cases supporting the majority’s holding (Fenley v. Kristoffersen (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 139 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; Dow v. Britt (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 868 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 710 ]; Heves v. Kershaw (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 340 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 837 ]), but they are wrong. The premise is, “The intent of these sections [Veh. Code, §§ 17150 and 17151] is to make it clear that as between the operator and the owner, the primary liability is that of the operator and the liability of the owner is secondary. The owner’s liability is like that of a guarantor as to the [$15,000] joint liability of owner and operator. . . . This is in no way prejudicial to the rights of the injured party as far as the collection of this joint liability of owner and operator is concerned. Such joint liability must be satisfied before application of any payments to the separate and additional liability of the operator beyond the amount of the owner’s liability.” (Heves, supra, at p. 344 .) Not prejudicial? Of course it is. We do not know the extent of plaintiff’s damages here, but they apparently exceed $25,000 by a substantial amount.

Nothing in Vehicle Code sections 17150 or 17151 supports the…

WALLIN, Acting P.J.

(1) (See fn. 1.) Plaintiff Peter Lindgren appeals an order granting defendant Baker Engineering Corporation's motion for summary judgment. [1] We affirm.

Peter Lindgren brought suit against Kenton and Sue Martin and Baker Engineering Corporation based on an automobile accident in which Lindgren was allegedly injured. [2] The accident occurred on March 1, 1983, and involved Lindgren's vehicle and an automobile driven by Sue Martin. The Martins' car was purchased from Baker Engineering pursuant to an installment sale contract under which the final payment was due March 1, 1983, the date of the accident.

Baker Engineering moved for summary judgment, alleging as undisputed material facts (1) that Baker Engineering delivered endorsed registration and ownership certificates to Kenton Martin on March 1, 1983, prior to the accident and (2) as an alternative ground for summary judgment, that the Martins' insurance carrier paid Lindgren $25,000 in settlement. Lindgren opposed the motion on the basis that (1) there were "controverted facts regarding when the ... transfer of the certificate of ownership and the certificate of registration of the subject vehicle…