California Supreme Court Law Blog

Up until 1975, California had followed the legal doctrine that if a person was at all at fault for an accident, that person was barred from any recovery under the doctrine known as contributory negligence. That meant that if a person was injured in an automobile accident but was 1% at fault, that person could not recover anything whatsoever. Truly contributory negligence barring any recovery was an unjust legal doctrine that lead to harsh results.

In a bold and brilliant decision, the California Supreme Court in Li v. Yellow Cab (1975) 13 Cal 3d 804, announced that the "all-or-nothing" doctrine know as contributory negligence had to give way to the pure form of comparative negligence which allowed a person who was partly at fault to still recover damages from the other negligent party. It all started when Ngu Li was driving her 1967 Oldsmobile northbound on Alvarado Street toward Third Street in Los Angeles, California at about 9:00 p.m. on November 21, 1968. As she began to make her turn onto Third Street, Robert Phillips, an employee of Yellow Cab, heading southbound on Alvarado, collided with the rear end of Ms. Li's vehicle.

This accident caused Ms. Li injuries and she filed a lawsuit against Yellow Cab to recover her damages. The trial court decided although the defendant (Yellow Cab) was going too fast and partly responsible for the accident, that because the plaintiff (Li) negligently turned in front of the on-coming Yellow Cab vehicle, Li was barred from any recovery. The case was appealed. The California Supreme Court seized the opportunity to change the course of law.

The California Supreme Court rejected the long-established legal doctrine of contributory negligence and adopted the pure form of comparative negligence. It reversed the judgment in favor of Yellow Cab holding that even though Plaintiff Li was partly at fault, that did not preclude her from recovering from Yellow Cab in proportion to its fault. Logic, experience, and fundamental justice were the three factors that lead the court to remedy an unfair and unjust legal doctrine. Who would ever have thought that an accident on the streets of Los Angeles would radically change the law of negligence and usher in the dynamic legal doctrine of comparative negligence?

An important side note - It was Ms. Li's attorneys who didn't give up and appealed arguing for a change in the law. Law is a noble profession. Lawyers have made and continue to make invaluable contributions to the lives of ordinary citizens and society as a whole.

In 1968 the California Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion written by the renown and still revered Chief Justice Roger Traynor. Generally, a person is not liable if he or she used ordinary care to prevent harm to another. In other cases, one may be shielded from liability if the person hired an independent contractor whose negligence is the root cause of harm to a third party.

However, in Maloney v. Rath the plaintiff, Maloney, was injured when her car was hit by Rath's (the defendant) vehicle because Rath could not stop her car because the brakes failed. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability. What that means is the verdict was in favor of the defendant who had established she had taken proper measures to hire an independent brake repair, had inspected the brakes, and essentially did what a prudent person would do to maintain the safety of her vehicle in compliance with the vehicle code.

The California Supreme Court held that even though the defendant had done when a prudent person would do, the defendant was still liable because the vehicle code requires the owner/driver of a vehicle to maintain it in a safe condition and that responsibility is non-delegable. Non-delegable duty means the responsibility can't be passed on to an independent contractor repair shop. No passing the buck here. It is not strict liability, but a public policy arising out of the legislative mandate to maintain vehicles in a safe condition.

So faulty brakes gets to the California Supreme Court and great law is pronounced by a brilliant jurist writing for the majority of the Court. In an astounding opinion succinctly expressed in 4 pages, new law was established which is still the law. The law says there are some responsibilities no matter how carefully fulfilled will not allow the person responsible for safety of a motor vehicle to point the finger at someone else. The buck stops with the person who puts the action in motion. If your brakes don't stop your car and you hit another car, there is no passing the buck - you're it.

There it is - Maloney v. Rath - forever known as the seminal case firmly establishing the doctrine of non-delegable duty. This case is studied by every law school student in California and important to every driver or passenger on the road. Think of it as the buck stops with you.

Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, forty years after it was decided, is still famous and cited by attorneys, commentators, and courts alike. A very sophisticated analysis to reach the conclusion that an "Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the later has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought injury upon himself," California Civil Code Section 1714.

The statute is fair and makes common sense, but remnants of the past from common-law interfered with justice drawing distinctions between whether a person was a social guest, an invitee or a trespasser. But a cracked bathroom water faucet changed that and made history.

Rowland, a guest at Ms. Christian's apartment, used a cracked water faucet knob and that was known by Ms. Christian to be cracked. The knob broke and severed tendons and nerves of Mr. Rowland's right hand. Rowland sued Christian for his damages. Summary judgment was granted to Christian despite facts in Rowland's declaration that should have precluded judgment. Rowland appealed.

The California Supreme Court reasoned through the common law, Civil Code Section 1714, and cases to reach the decision that it made no sense to relieve an occupier of land from exercising ordinary care to prevent injury to another regardless of why the person was on the land. The law simplified to a reasonable and sensible principle that had already been codified by Civil Code Section 1714.

Amazing isn't it? A crack in water faucet gave the California Supreme Court the opportunity to break with history. A cracked water faucet revealed the cracks in the law which paved the way for the California Supreme Court to announce a sound principle to ensure justice for injured people.