Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.
34 Cal. 3d 49, 192 Cal. Rptr. 857, 665 P.2d 947 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's duty of care extends to protecting against foreseeable criminal or negligent acts of third parties, and the issue of foreseeability must be left to the jury unless reasonable minds could not possibly differ.
Facts:
- Charles Bigbee was inside a public telephone booth located in a liquor store parking lot.
- The booth was situated 15 feet from the curb of Century Boulevard, a major six-lane street where traffic often exceeded the speed limit.
- Leona North Roberts, who was intoxicated, was driving on Century Boulevard when she lost control of her car, veered off the road, and crashed into the telephone booth.
- Bigbee saw the car approaching but was unable to escape because the telephone booth's door jammed, trapping him inside.
- Another person standing next to the booth was able to see the car coming and successfully get out of its path to avoid injury.
- Approximately 20 months prior to this incident, another car had struck a telephone booth in the very same location.
- Following the prior accident, the defendants installed steel bumper posts between the booths and the parking lot, but none between the booths and Century Boulevard.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Bigbee sued Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and other entities in a California trial court.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrers, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action.
- Bigbee petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, ordering the trial court to overrule the demurrers and allow the case to proceed.
- After discovery, the defendants jointly moved for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Bigbee, the plaintiff, appealed the summary 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 the risk that a car might veer off a major thoroughfare and strike a telephone booth, injuring a person trapped inside by a defective door, so unforeseeable as a matter of law that the companies responsible for the booth's design, location, and maintenance are absolved of any duty of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Bird, C.J.
No. The risk that a car might veer off a major thoroughfare and strike a telephone booth is not, as a matter of law, unforeseeable. The determination of whether a duty exists is a question of fact for the jury when there is room for a reasonable difference of opinion. The court reasoned that foreseeability is not measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably prudent person would take it into account. Here, the booth's location 15 feet from a major, high-speed thoroughfare, combined with the fact that a prior, similar accident had occurred at the same spot, created a triable issue of fact as to foreseeability. The negligent or reckless act of the third-party driver, Roberts, is not a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation because the likelihood of such conduct was one of the primary hazards that made the defendants' placement and maintenance of the booth potentially negligent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kroninger, J.
Yes, as to the negligent siting claim; No, as to the defective maintenance claim. The judge dissented from the majority's conclusion that the negligent location of the booth created a triable issue, but concurred that the case should proceed on the theory that the booth's door was defective. The dissent argued that finding a duty based on the booth's location would make all roadside businesses insurers for accidents caused by wayward vehicles, which is an unreasonable burden given the public utility of conveniently located telephones. Foreseeability alone does not establish duty. However, the judge concurred that the allegation of a defective, sticky door that prevented the plaintiff's escape created a valid question for the jury, as this needlessly increased the risk to the user and could be found to be a concurrent cause of his injuries.
Analysis:
This case significantly solidifies the modern view of foreseeability in tort law, establishing it as a fact-intensive question reserved for the jury in all but the most extreme cases. The decision clarifies that a defendant's duty of care can extend to protecting plaintiffs from the foreseeable negligence or criminal acts of third parties. By rejecting the argument that a third party's act is automatically a superseding cause, the ruling expanded the potential liability for businesses whose property placement or condition might foreseeably intersect with such third-party conduct. It serves as a key precedent for cases involving premises liability where injuries are directly caused by an intervening actor but are allegedly facilitated by the defendant's negligence in creating a dangerous condition.
