Dillenbeck v. City of Los Angeles
72 Cal. Rptr. 321, 69 Cal. 2d 472, 446 P.2d 129 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's internal safety rules and training bulletins are admissible as evidence of the standard of due care, evidence of an employee's negligence if violated, and as factual statements relevant to a party's contributory negligence; an employee may also be cross-examined regarding their knowledge of these rules.
Facts:
- Arthur O. Dillenbeek drove a 1961 Oldsmobile in a northerly direction on Hobart Avenue.
- Officer Abraham Weber, an employee of the Los Angeles Police Department, drove an emergency vehicle eastward on Wilshire Boulevard, responding to a police radio broadcast ordering all units to a suspected bank robbery.
- Officer Weber's vehicle had both its red lights and siren activated and operating.
- A collision occurred between Dillenbeek's vehicle and Officer Weber's police car at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Hobart Avenue on January 22, 1962, at approximately 2 p.m.
- At the time of the accident, rain fell steadily, the streets were wet, Dillenbeek's car windows were closed, and the car radio was playing at a normal volume.
- Witnesses testified that the traffic control light at the intersection showed green for Dillenbeek and red for Weber.
- A large office building on the southwest corner of the intersection, along with vehicles and pedestrians, partially obstructed Officer Weber’s view of the southern portion of Hobart Avenue.
- Dillenbeek died on January 24, 1962, from injuries sustained in the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Arthur O. Dillenbeek’s wife and son) brought a wrongful death action against the City of Los Angeles (defendant) in a trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict by a 10 to 2 vote in favor of the City of Los Angeles and against the plaintiffs.
- Judgment was entered on the verdict.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) 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:
Does a trial court err by refusing to admit an employer's internal safety rules and training bulletins as evidence of the standard of due care, employee negligence, and factors relevant to contributory negligence, or to allow cross-examination on an employee's knowledge of such rules, in a wrongful death action arising from an emergency vehicle collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, the trial court erred by refusing to admit the police department's daily training bulletins and to allow cross-examination of Officer Weber regarding his knowledge of these materials. The court established three reasons for admissibility: First, the bulletins should have been admitted as substantive proof that Officer Weber drove negligently. Employer safety rules, such as those detailing how an officer should operate an emergency vehicle (Bulletins Nos. 53, 54, 55), are admissible as evidence of the standard of due care. Such rules represent an employer's 'informed judgment as to the feasibility of certain precautions' and are admissible as an implied admission by a party opponent. Furthermore, an employee's failure to follow a safety rule promulgated by their employer serves as independent evidence of negligence. The court clarified that the distinction for admissibility turns on whether a directive shows an employer's reconciliation of efficiency and safety, not on whether it allows employee discretion. Second, the court should have permitted cross-examination of Officer Weber regarding his knowledge of the bulletins. This would help establish the officer's training and current familiarity with safety matters. If Weber possessed superior knowledge due to his training and experience, his conduct should be measured against that of a reasonably prudent person possessing similar knowledge. Conversely, ignorance of these rules, which Chief Parker stated an officer 'should know,' could also be evidence of negligence. Third, the bulletins should have been admitted as evidence relevant to assessing decedent Dillenbeek's lack of contributory negligence. The bulletins contained factual statements (e.g., effect of closed windows, radio volume, building obstructions on siren audibility) by the city's experts, which were admissible as implied admissions. These facts could explain why a reasonably prudent person in Dillenbeek's position might not have heard the siren. The court concluded that the exclusion of this evidence was prejudicial error, warranting reversal of the judgment.
Dissenting - Burke, J.
No, the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the bulletins into evidence. The dissenting opinion argues that the 'Daily Training Bulletins' were merely informative and instructive in nature, not formal 'rules' or 'directives' of the City of Los Angeles. They were titled 'Daily Training Bulletin,' 'How to Operate a Motor Vehicle Under Emergency Conditions,' and contained 'Legal Provisions' and 'Field Tests.' These documents were presented as 'written lectures' with cartoons, compiled from legal advice and field tests, rather than prescriptive safety standards. Justice Burke contended that the majority's interpretation of selected sentences from these bulletins, elevating them to formal safety rules, was taken out of context. He asserted that no such binding rules or directives, as required for the majority's theory of admissibility, could be found within these training materials prepared for the information and instruction of police department members. Therefore, he would affirm the judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of discoverable and admissible evidence in negligence cases, particularly against governmental entities or large organizations. By allowing internal safety rules and training materials as evidence of both the standard of care and employee negligence, the court provides plaintiffs with a powerful tool for demonstrating breach of duty and increases accountability for employers. The ruling clarifies that even 'discretionary' guidelines, if they reflect an employer's reconciliation of safety and efficiency, can be considered 'safety rules.' Furthermore, allowing cross-examination on an employee's knowledge of these rules and using factual statements within them for contributory negligence defenses expands the avenues for establishing fault, influencing how entities draft, disseminate, and educate their workforce on safety procedures.
