Lewis v. South San Francisco Yellow Cab – Case Brief Summary
Summary of Lewis v. South San Francisco Yellow Cab Co., 93 Cal.App.2d 849 (1949).
Facts
Lewis (P) arranged a ride home with San Francisco Yellow Cab (D). Lewis had had prior dealings with the cab company, the cab driver, and a sailor who was accompanying her. The cab driver alleged that the sailor made advances toward Lewis. The driver, instead of taking her home, took her to another location and ordered Lewis and the sailor out of his cab. She stumbled in a ditch and broke her foot after running off into the dark.
The facts in the plaintiff’s complaint did not support the allegations that the cab driver drove to a secluded spot and made improper suggestions and advances toward her. Lewis alleged that she became frightened and ran off into the darkness. The driver had not made any sexual advances toward the plaintiff, and she was injured because she wanted to evade the sailor and not because she was afraid of an attack by the taxi driver. The trial judge granted South San Francisco Yellow Cab a non suit and the plaintiff appealed.
Issue
Whether there was any evidence provided in the plaintiff’s complaint to support the allegations.
Holding
The court affirmed the lower court’s grant of the motion for non suit.
Rule
A party must recover, if at all, according to his pleadings, rather than upon some other different cause which may have been developed by the proof. The defendant is entitled to a nonsuit when there is material variance between the pleading and the facts. Unless plaintiff obtained leave to so amend his complaint as to conform to the proofs, the defendant may have his nonsuit though the testimony was admitted without objection.
Reasoning
In this case, the facts gave rise to a different cause of action from the cause of action that Lewis raised in her complaint and Lewis failed to request permission to amend her complaint to conform to the facts. The trial court was correct in granting a nonsuit.
Disposition
Affirmed.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett for a law school civil procedure case brief in which the Supreme Court addressed the issue of when summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.