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.

June Dimare and her husband were tenants living in an apartment building owned by Rosina Crisci, who was a 70 year old widow. Mrs. DiMare was going down an outside wooden staircase when a star tread failed and she fell through the hole down to her waist and was dangling 15 feet above the ground. She and her husband filed a lawsuit against Rosina Crisci who had a $10,000.00 liability policy. Demands to settle were made within the policy limits and Mrs. Crisci even offered to pay $2,500.00 toward settlement.

The insurance company, Security Insurance Company, hired an experienced lawyer. This defense lawyer and the claims adjuster both thought that there might be a verdict in excess of $100,000.00 because Mrs. DiMare had suffered injuries and had psychosis as a result of the accident. The insurance company did a comprehensive, in-depth investigation to determine if Mrs. Dimare had psychosis preceding the accident, but it learned she did not. Mrs. Crisci authorized Security Insurance to settle. But Security Insurance refused to settle.

Mrs. Crisci and her husband won their lawsuit. Mrs. Crisci was awarded $100,000.00 and her husband, on a loss of consortium claim, was awarded $1,000.00. Security paid $10,000.00 the policy limit but adamantly refused to pay any more money. Mrs. DiMare and the 70 year old widow Mrs. Crisci entered into a settlement. Mrs. Crisci paid $22,000.00, gave Mrs. DiMare a 40% interest in property that Mrs. Crisci owned, and assigned her action against Security to Mrs. DiMare. Mrs. Crisci became indigent, hysterical, and even attempted suicide. Her rent was paid for by her relatives. None of this bothered Security. It paid its $10,000.00 policy limit.

Well, a broken staircase and Security's callousness lead to the California Supreme Court affirming a judgment for Mrs. Crisci for her own damages and the judgment that was in excess of her policy limits. The court reasoned that the insurance company gave more consideration to its own financial interests than to those of its insured's knowing that there was a significant risk that a verdict would exceed the policy limit; and, therefore, it was responsible not only for the policy limit but for everything awarded above the policy limit.

Attorneys now refer to this as "opening up the policy". Insurance companies have a duty to accept reasonable settlements. And when they refuse to settle within the policy limits giving more consideration to their own interests over the interests of their insureds and there is a verdict in excess of the policy limit, the insurance companies are liable for the whole amount.

Moral of the story - An insurance company can be callous and ignore the rights of its insureds, but they have to pay the price. Now, that is a common sense decision that helps insureds get what they pay for and one that encourages insurance companies to do the right thing.

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.

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.

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.