Bloomberg v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club
1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2710, 207 Cal. Rptr. 853, 162 Cal. App. 3d 571 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that voluntarily undertakes to provide assistance to another, thereby inducing reliance, assumes a duty to perform with reasonable care. A foreseeable criminal act by a third party is not a superseding cause that automatically severs the causal chain of negligence.
Facts:
- On September 20, 1980, a car carrying 16-year-old Seth Bloomberg as a passenger, driven by David Camblin, experienced engine trouble on the Golden State Freeway.
- Camblin pulled the car onto the shoulder of the road.
- At approximately 1:30 a.m., Camblin placed a call from a roadside callbox to the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (Auto Club) requesting emergency assistance.
- After the call, Bloomberg and Camblin returned to the stalled vehicle to wait for the Auto Club tow truck.
- The Auto Club dispatched a tow truck, but it was unable to locate the vehicle.
- At approximately 2:25 a.m., while Bloomberg and Camblin were still waiting, an intoxicated driver crashed into their stalled car.
- Seth Bloomberg sustained injuries in the collision that resulted in his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Barbara Bloomberg sued the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California in a California trial court for negligence.
- The trial court sustained the Auto Club's demurrer to the Bloombergs' third amended complaint, based on the arguments that the Auto Club owed no duty of care and the drunk driver was a superseding cause.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the Auto Club.
- The Bloombergs, as appellants, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company that voluntarily undertakes to provide roadside assistance to a stranded motorist owe a duty of care to that motorist, such that the company may be liable for harm caused by a third-party drunk driver if the company negligently fails to render aid?
Opinions:
Majority - Ashby, Acting P. J.
Yes. A company that voluntarily undertakes to render aid to a stranded motorist assumes a duty of care, and the foreseeable act of a third-party drunk driver does not, as a matter of law, constitute a superseding cause that relieves the company of liability for its negligence. The court reasoned that one who undertakes an affirmative course of conduct affecting another's interests, such as promising to send a tow truck, assumes a duty to act with care. By promising assistance, the Auto Club induced reliance from the teenagers, who refrained from seeking other help, thereby increasing their exposure to danger. The court further held that the criminal act of a drunk driver hitting a stranded car on a freeway late at night is a foreseeable risk, not a 'highly unusual or extraordinary' event. Therefore, the drunk driver's act is not a superseding cause that would automatically cut off the Auto Club's liability for its alleged negligence; rather, foreseeability is a question of fact for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that a duty of care arises from a voluntary undertaking that induces reliance. It is significant for its treatment of proximate causation, establishing that a third party's criminal or negligent act does not automatically sever liability if that act was a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence. The case broadens the scope of foreseeability, particularly regarding dangers faced by stranded motorists, making it more difficult for defendants to have negligence cases dismissed on demurrer by claiming a third-party's action was a superseding cause. This obligates service providers who promise aid to consider the foreseeable risks their customers face while awaiting assistance.
Unlock the full brief for Bloomberg v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club