King

This is an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff *Page 418 in a collision between two automobiles driven by defendants Ralph W. Emerson and C.R. Fairfield. Plaintiff was a guest in the automobile of defendant Fairfield. Defendants Monroe, Lyon Miller, Inc., and W.B. Moyle are joined as defendants upon the theory that defendant Fairfield was their agent and employee. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants C.R. Fairfield, W.B. Moyle and Monroe, Lyon Miller, Inc., in the sum of $13,000. From this judgment there are two appeals, one by defendant Fairfield and one by defendant Monroe, Lyon Miller, Inc., and defendant Moyle. As to defendant Emerson a new trial was granted and from the order granting said motion said defendant also prosecutes an appeal. [1] As to defendant Fairfield, the only point raised by him is that the right of a guest to recover in this case was destroyed by section 141 3/4 of the California Vehicle Act of 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 1580). The injury took place on August 10, 1927, and the trial was had September 25, 1928. It has been held that the foregoing section is not retroactive and, hence,…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 416 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 417 The appeal of defendant Fairfield is based upon the sole contention that the right of the guest in this case to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile collision was destroyed by section 141 3/4 of the California Vehicle Act of 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 1580). In our original opinion, this point was decided adversely to this appellant. A rehearing was granted upon the showing that the question involved was pending before the Supreme Court. In the case of Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65 [ 290 P. 438 ], the Supreme Court definitely determined that this section is not retroactive, and this decision has become final. We therefore adopt the conclusion reached by this court in the original opinion. As to the other appellants, after a further consideration of the case, we see no reason why the conclusion reached by the court in the original opinion should be disturbed, and it is therefore adopted…