Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court

Good Law
128 Cal. Rptr. 691·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1421·56 Cal. App. 3d 978
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 1976Civ. 37044California3,721 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rattigan, J.

This proceeding originates on the amended complaint in an action for damages which is pending in respondent court. According to the pleading (hereinafter the “complaint”), Anthony J. McCarthy was killed in an airplane accident on April 14, 1972. The plaintiffs in the action (and real parties in interest herein) are his widow and his minor son, who sue as his “heirs,” and Mary Linn, who sues as the special administratrix of his estate. The defendants are the three petitioners herein (Stencel Aero Engineering Corporation [hereinafter “Stencel Aero”], Steinthal & Company, Inc., and Hi-Tek Corporation), Curtiss-Wright Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and fictitious defendants identified as “Does,” all of whom are collectively alleged to have been the manufacturers of the aircraft involved and of its component parts.

Petitioners seek a writ of mandate requiring respondent court to vacate its order denying, and further requiring it to grant, a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to a single count of the complaint in which the plaintiffs seek punitive damages. The challenged order operated to permit the proof and recovery of punitive damages in the action by all…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.