Schultz v. Los Angeles Dons, Inc.

107 Cal. App. 2d 718, 238 P.2d 73 (1951)

 

RULE:

Where an omitted finding must be inferred from a consideration of the findings actually made, an appellate court will recognize the necessary inference and consider the finding in question as having in effect been made.

FACTS:

During training, specialists found that respondent football player had an injury that made it dangerous for him to play football. Appellant football team terminated respondent’s employment contract on the ground that he had made false or fraudulent representations regarding his physical condition prior to signing the contract. Respondent sued for damages for wrongful termination of the contract, and the trial court found for respondent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

ISSUE:

Should the judgment be reversed on the ground that the trial court failed to make findings concerning the cause of respondent football player’s disability and the requirement for respondent to give written notice of his injury?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The trial court found that all the allegations upon which the affirmative defenses were based were untrue. It followed that the trial court found that it was not true, as alleged in the defense, that at the time of entering into the contract, respondent football player was not in a physical condition to render the services required. Therefore, the injury that caused respondent's disability must have been suffered after the execution of the contract. Further, the trial court also found that it was not true, as alleged in the defense, that pursuant to paragraph 7 of the contract, respondent had been fully compensated. It was under paragraph 7 that appellant football team contended that respondent's failure to give appellant written notice of his injury absolved appellant from liability to compensate respondent for anything except his training expenses and transportation. The court having found to the contrary, it necessarily must have impliedly found that the failure of respondent to give the written notice did not bar his right of recovery.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.