California Supreme Court Law Blog

Sometimes the California Supreme Court goes a little whacky like it did in Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal 4th 763. In this case, while Ms. Saelzler, a FedEx employee, was trying to deliver a package during the day to a residential apartment complex, she was brutally sexually assaulted by three men who were never caught. Ms. Saelzler filed a lawsuit for damages against the owners of the complex alleging that the owner's failed to provide security to protect against foreseeable third party criminal acts.

To establish liability, she proved that pizza parlors refused to deliver to the complex, that the assistant manager, a woman, relied upon security to walk to her car, that there had been 55 incidences of broken fences, 41 trespasses, that the police had responded to the premises 50 times and that the criminal activity on the property included gunfire, robberies, rapes and assaults.

The defendant argued that it did not need to provide security during the day, that there was no way to prove that if there had been security the attack would not have occurred anyway. Cutting through the procedural aspects of the case, it reached the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court concluded that despite the overwhelming evidence of prior criminal acts and the recommendation of the security personnel that the apartment complex should have security during the day, plaintiff had to prove with certainty that security during the day would have prevented the brutal sexual assault. This decision was unquestionably good for owners of apartment complexes; but equally unquestionably a bad decision for Californians.

The dissenting opinion, written by the outstanding jurist, Justice Kennard, persuasively argued, in essence, how ridiculous the majority decision is in this case. Justice Kennard rightly chastised the majority for requiring certainty in establishing causation and preventing the case from reaching a jury. Gunfire, robberies, rapes, and assaults were enough for the dissent; and they should have been enough for the majority.

We need a courageous lawyer to challenge this decision or, alternatively, the legislature should act to protect its citizens.

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.