Johnson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Good Law
1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1997·216 Cal. App. 2d 133·30 Cal. Rptr. 650
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 1963Civ. 27049California2,115 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

In 1955, plaintiff purchased a new Ford automobile from Culver Motors, a dealer in Ford automobiles. In 1956, while driving in Colorado, plaintiff was involved in an auto accident whereby his car was badly wrecked and in which he received personal injuries. In 1957, plaintiff instituted suit against the Ford Motor Company (hereinafter referred to as Ford), and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (hereinafter referred to as Goodyear) in a federal court. This action was predicated on the theory of negligence in the testing and manufacture of a tubeless tire and of a wheel rim to hold such a tire. While this action was still pending in the federal court, plaintiff, in 1959, instituted suit in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles against Culver Motors, and Does one to ten. This suit is based on the same happening or event as plaintiff’s suit in the federal court against Ford and Goodyear. However, in the state suit, plaintiff substantially changed the theory of his case by alleging a cause of action for breach of warranty. Sometime in 1962, plaintiff for the first time discovered that he may have a cause of action against Ford and Goodyear also based upon breach of warranty.…

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.