Rodriguez was injured in a car accident and settled with the other driver, Oto, and the rental car company, Hertz, who rented a car to the other man. The release released: “Takeshi Oto and The Hertz Corporation, its employees, agents, servants, successors, heirs, executors, administrators and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships (hereafter Releasees).” Rodriguez later brought an action against Oto and Oto’s employer, Toshiba. Defendants answered the complaint, asserting the release as an affirmative defense, and moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed, stating: “Neither the failure to name Toshiba in the release, nor plaintiff’s deposition testimony about his subjective understanding of its effect, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning the mutual intention of the parties. So far as this record shows, that intention was fully and accurately expressed by the language of the release. Rodriguez v. Oto (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; January 15, 2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.