Mize v. Jorden

3 Citing cases

  1. Peterson v. Grieger, Inc.

    57 Cal.2d 43 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that it was reasonable for a trier of fact to find implied permission where a first valet was given permission to park a vehicle and the first valet gave permission to a second valet to move the vehicle to an overflow lot because the second valet's use did not exceed the "time, purpose, or area" restrictions imposed

    Where the trier of fact has drawn an inference of such implied permission from conflicting evidence bearing on that issue, which inference appears to be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, that factual conclusion of permissive use may not be disturbed on appeal. ( Garmon v. Sebastian, 181 Cal.App.2d 254, 257 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 101], hear. den.; Mize v. Jorden, 116 Cal.App.2d 301, 305 [ 253 P.2d 702].) Furthermore, the evidence must be viewed most favorably to respondent, and all reasonable inferences should be indulged in to uphold the judgment.

  2. Hayes v. Financial Indem. Co.

    118 Cal.App.2d 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    [1] Ordinarily the question as to whether or not a vehicle was used with the permission of the owner is one of fact, to be determined by the trial court. ( Mize v. Jorden, 116 Cal.App.2d 301 [ 253 P.2d 702]; Casey v. Fortune, 78 Cal.App.2d 922 [ 179 P.2d 99].) [2] The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and if there is any substantial support for a finding such finding will not be disturbed on appeal. ( Flemmer v. Monckton, 73 Cal.App.2d 271 [ 166 P.2d 380].)

  3. Steele v. Nagel

    89 Idaho 522 (Idaho 1965)   Cited 19 times
    In Steele, the Court echoed the holding in Abbs when it stated that implied permission is a question of fact for the jury, unless the evidence is subject to only one reasonable conclusion that may be deduced from the evidence.

    In regard to the precise issue of consent or permission, the California courts have uniformly held that the element of permission is necessary to a determination of liability under Section 402 and is a question of fact to be proved at the trial. Irvine v. Wilson, 137 Cal.App.2d Supp. 843, 289 P.2d 895 (1955); Mize v. Jorden, 116 Cal.App.2d 301, 253 P.2d 702 (1953); Scheff v. Roberts, 35 Cal.2d 10, 215 P.2d 925 (1950); Reed v. Cortez, 88 Cal.App.2d 416, 198 P.2d 911 (1948); Hobbs v. Transport Motor Co., 22 Cal.2d 773, 141 P.2d 738 (1943). This general rule is further stated in 8 Am.Jur.2d ยง 605, at p. 157: