Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdamagesstatuteappealtrialrespondentappellant
tortstatuteappealtrialrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734, 125 S.Ct. 2108, 161 L.Ed.2d 1042, 73 USLW 4404, 33 Media L. Rep. 1737, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4556, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6227, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 322
View Case »
Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 272 Cal.Rptr. 387
View Case »
In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340, 191 A.3d 560, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,407
View Case »
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090, 929 P.2d 596, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 277, 65 USLW 2567, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 724, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1023
View Case »
Kaufman v. Langhofer, 223 Ariz. 249, 222 P.3d 272, 572 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 11
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Laczko v. Jules Meyers, Inc., 276 Cal.App.2d 293, 80 Cal.Rptr. 798

Facts

On November 9, 1967, the appellant purchased a used Cadillac from the respondent, which had an odometer reading of 34,000 miles. Two months later, the appellant discovered that the car had actually been driven over 55,000 miles at the time of purchase. The buyer filed an action for damages for fraud after the trial court dismissed the case based on a general demurrer, which argued that the written purchase agreement barred the claim due to its 'as is' condition and lack of representations regarding the mileage.

On November 9, 1967, appellant purchased a used Cadillac from respondent. Its odometer then read 34,000 miles. About two months later appellant discovered that the car had been driven over 55,000 miles at the time respondent purchased it.

Issue

Did the buyer's complaint state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for fraud despite the 'as is' clause in the purchase agreement?

Did the buyer's complaint state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for fraud despite the 'as is' clause in the purchase agreement?

Rule

A violation of a statutory duty can constitute an actionable tort, and the public policy embodied in statutes allows any injured member of the public to bring an action for such violations.

A tort in essence is the breach of a nonconsensual duty owed another. Violation of a statutory duty to another may therefore be a tort and violation of a statute embodying a public policy is generally actionable even though no specific civil remedy is provided in the statute itself.

Analysis

The court analyzed the buyer's complaint and determined that it sufficiently alleged that the dealer manipulated the odometer, which constituted a violation of Vehicle Code section 28051. The court noted that even though the purchase agreement included an 'as is' clause, the statutory violation created a nonconsensual duty that the dealer owed to the buyer, thus allowing the fraud claim to proceed.

We hold that respondent's breach of its statutory duty to appellant constituted an actionable tort.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, directing it to vacate the order sustaining the demurrer and to enter an order overruling the demurrer, thereby allowing the buyer's fraud claim to move forward.

The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer and to enter an order overruling the demurrer.

Who won?

The buyer prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for fraud based on the dealer's statutory violations.

The buyer prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for fraud based on the dealer's statutory violations.

You must be