Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In determining whether the defendant owed a duty of due care to the plaintiff in a
given case, the courts have applied the balancing test derived from Rowland v. Christian
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, ". . . [T]he major
[considerations] are the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty the
plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct
and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of
preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the
community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the
unforeseeable as matter of law in plaintiff's action against telephone company for injuries
sustained when plaintiff was using company's telephone booth and was struck by
intoxicated driver; foreseeability of risk that phone booth user might be injured by car
veering off street and crashing into phone booth having defective door was question of
fact for jury. Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 49, 58-60, 192 Cal. Rptr.
Jury able reasonably to find that defendant, who had contracted with decedent's
employer to maintain its trucks, was liable for decedent's death, because defendant's
negligent maintenance of trucks had placed decedent in position in which he was exposed
electrical system, and decedent was hit by speeding car as he stood on shoulder of
highway in dark. Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1830, 1840,
20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 913. Foreseeability of risk is usually question of fact; and is question of
law only if under undisputed facts there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion.
Twohig v. Briner (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 1102, 1106, 214 Cal. Rptr. 729.
Persons injured while undertaking necessary rescue are entitled, absent rash or
reckless conduct on their part, to recover from person whose negligence created peril
necessitating rescue. Solgaard v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1971) 6 Cal. 3d 361, 3 68, 99 Cal.
ACCIDENT
foreseen, defendant liable; but independent, intervening act that is highly unusual or
extraordinary, not reasonably likely to happen, and hence not foreseeable, is superseding
cause precluding liability. Bloomberg v. Interinsurance Exchange (1984) 162 Cal. App.
negligence only if intervening act is highly unusual or extraordinary and hence not
reasonably foreseeable. Cline v. Watkins (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 174, 178, 135 Cal. Rptr.
838 (citing with approval Rest 2d Torts 435 and 447. Reasonable foreseeability of
independent intervening cause is question of fact unless under undisputed facts there is
no room for reasonable difference of opinion. Cline v. Watkins (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d
174, 178, 135 Cal. Rptr. 838 ; Schrimscher v. Bryson (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 660, 664,
negligent conduct, even if third person's conduct directly precipitates injury; fact that
third person's act was innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does not
insulate defendant from liability. Bullis v. Security Pac. Nat. Bank (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 801,
Fact that intervening act of third person is negligent is not superseding cause if
reasonable person is not aware of situation would not regard it as highly extraordinary
that third person so acted, or if act is normal response to situation created by defendant's
conduct, and manner in which intervening act is done is not extraordinarily negligent.
Stewart v. Cox (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 857, 864, 13 Cal. Rptr. 521, 362 P.2d 345 (citing with
Owner of bulldozer, who left it unattended and unlocked, liable to plaintiff injured
when bulldozer was started by three juveniles; fact that intervening act was intentionally
tortious and criminal did not preclude owner's liability, because this precise foreseeable
risk made owner's leaving bulldozer unlocked and unattended negligent. Richardson v.
transportation of victim to hospital could be held liable for further injury or death
suffered by victim on way to hospital; error to sustain demurrer for original tortfeasors
when victim was killed in crash of helicopter transporting victim to hospital. Anaya v.
Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 971, 976, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228.
Speeding car that killed truck driver who was standing on highway shoulder in
darkness because his truck had broken down was not intervening or superseding cause
cutting off liability of defendants that had negligently maintained the truck, unless jury
determined that defendants could not have foreseen possibility of this sort of accident.
Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 1830, 1840, 1848, 20 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 913.