John Bowman v. Bayport Yachts, John R. Means, Susan Bialek, Bialek Family Trust, Thomas J. Bialek
Published: May 11, 2002 | Result Date: Sep. 27, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 812252 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
J. Scott Souders
(J. Scott Souders PC)
Timothy J. Ryan
(Bold Polisner Maddow Nelson & Judson)
Facts
Plaintiff John Bowman brought this action to recover damages he incurred when judgment was had against him
for negligence in performing his duties as vessel inspector relating to the 1996 sale of the BialekÆs 1989 45-
foot Californian motor yacht. In that prior action, Bowman was found liable to his client, the purchaser of the
vessel, Stanley Strasberg, as Trustee of the Strasberg Family Trust, wherein Strasberg hired Bowman to
perform a pre-sale inspection of the vessel, which he did perform, but in conducting that inspection, Bowman
failed to advise Strasberg to inquire about numerous obvious repairs which had been performed on the vessel.
The trial court in the prior action found that the vessel had sustained major damage during a storm which
ripped the vessel from its moorings. The court in the prior action assessed damages against Bowman
amounting to the difference between the value of the vessel actually received by Strasberg, and that which
Strasberg paid to the Bialeks on the grounds that BowmanÆs sole function for which he received compensation
was to conduct a "condition and valuation" marine inspection on behalf of his clients, Strasberg, and that had
Bowman performed his duties as contracted, Strasberg would have been informed of the nature and extent of
the prior damage, and would have been permitted to inquire as to the effect such prior damage had on the value
of the vessel.
After judgment in the prior action was had against Bowman, Bowman filed this action seeking damages
against Bialek sellers, and Bayport Yachts, who brokered the vessel for fraud, negligence, indemnity and
recovery of attorney fees (tort of another) against these defendants.
Bowman sought damages against these defendants alleging that these defendants failed to inform him of the
prior damage to the vessel which prevented him from discovering and disclosing the same to the buyers.
Bowman further alleged that he was a dual agent of both the buyers and Bialek sellers,
and that Bialek owed him a duty to disclose all known defects and prior damage to the vessel.
Result
All defendantsÆ motions for summary judgment were granted, and judgment entered in favor of all defendants and against John Bowman. The court determined that BowmanÆs damages incurred in the prior action were the result of BowmanÆs negligence; that there was no agency relationship or duties owed as alleged between the Bialeks and Bowman, or Bayport and Bowman.
Other Information
This matter is on appeal, with all briefs having been filed, and oral argument waived by all parties. Appellant Bowman appeals this matter on the grounds that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Bowman was an agent of Bialek and Bayport at the time of his condition and valuation survey, and therefore summary judgment was improper. The Court of AppealÆs decision is anticipated to be rendered on or before June 15, 2002.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390