Biakanja v. Irving
49 Cal. 2d 647, 320 P.2d 16 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A professional who negligently performs a contract may be held liable in tort for damages to a third person not in privity of contract, where the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff and the harm was a foreseeable result of the negligence.
Facts:
- John Maroevich hired defendant Irving, a notary public, to prepare a will that would leave all of Maroevich's property to his sister, plaintiff Biakanja.
- Irving prepared the will, which Maroevich signed in Irving's presence.
- Irving affixed his notarial seal, incorrectly believing this made the will valid without witness signatures.
- Maroevich later had two witnesses sign the will, but they did not do so in his presence or in the presence of each other, and he did not acknowledge his signature to them.
- After Maroevich's death, the will was denied probate for failing to meet the legal requirements for attestation (proper witnessing).
- As a result of the will's invalidity, Biakanja received only one-eighth of the estate through intestate succession, rather than the entire estate as intended by the will.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Biakanja sued defendant Irving in a California trial court for negligence.
- The trial court found in favor of Biakanja and entered a judgment awarding her damages.
- Irving appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a notary public who negligently prepares an invalid will liable to an intended beneficiary for the resulting loss of their inheritance, even though no privity of contract exists between the notary and the beneficiary?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, C. J.
Yes. A notary who negligently drafts an invalid will is liable to the intended beneficiary for the resulting damages, even without privity of contract. The determination of whether a duty is owed to a third party is a matter of policy that involves balancing several factors. Here, the 'end and aim' of the transaction was to benefit Biakanja, and it was clearly foreseeable that Irving's negligence in preparing the will would cause her to lose her inheritance. The injury is certain, and there is a close connection between Irving's conduct and the harm suffered. Furthermore, Irving engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which attaches moral blame to his conduct and supports a policy of preventing such future harm by imposing civil liability.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional common law rule that required privity of contract for a plaintiff to recover for the negligent performance of a contract. By disapproving the precedent set in Buckley v. Gray, the court established a modern, policy-based balancing test for determining when a duty of care extends to third parties. This expansion of tort liability has had a profound impact on professional negligence cases, holding professionals accountable not just to their clients but also to the intended beneficiaries of their services, particularly in areas like estate planning and financial services.
Unlock the full brief for Biakanja v. Irving