Garcia v. Halsett
1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1130, 3 Cal. App. 3d 319, 82 Cal. Rptr. 420 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of strict liability in tort for defective products extends to licensors of personal property who place a product into the stream of commerce by making it available for public use on their premises.
Facts:
- On July 19, 1962, Arthur Garcia, an 11-year-old boy, went to the Happy Coin Launderette, owned by Halsett, to do laundry.
- Garcia loaded clothes into two front-loading washing machines, Nos. 1 and 2, and started them.
- After the machine had been spinning, Machine No. 2 stopped, and Garcia observed that the water had drained out.
- After unloading Machine No. 1, which had finished its cycle, Garcia went to unload Machine No. 2, which had remained stopped.
- He removed one batch of clothes from Machine No. 2 without incident.
- When Garcia inserted his hand into the machine a second time, it suddenly started up in a fast spin cycle, entangling and injuring his arm.
- The washing machine was not equipped with a micro switch, a common safety device that prevents the machine from operating when the door is open.
- Micro switches cost around $2.00, were available on the market, and were present on similar machines manufactured years earlier.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, the Garcias, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Halsett, in a state trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiffs requested that the judge provide the jury with instructions on the legal theories of bailment and strict liability.
- The trial court refused to give the requested instructions.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Halsett.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the intermediate 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 the doctrine of strict liability in tort apply to a licensor of personal property, such as a laundromat owner, who makes a defective product available for public use on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Caldecott, J.
Yes. The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to a licensor of personal property. The court reasoned that strict liability, previously applied to manufacturers, retailers, and lessors, should also apply to licensors who are an integral part of the overall marketing enterprise that places a product in the stream of commerce. Halsett, by providing the washing machines for public use, played a role in the overall enterprise of the product. The user, like Garcia, is in a vulnerable position, similar to a bystander, with no opportunity to inspect for latent defects. Therefore, the policy of placing the cost of injury on the enterprise that profits from the product's use applies, and the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on strict liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of strict products liability beyond the traditional chain of distribution (manufacturer, retailer, lessor). By extending the doctrine to licensors—businesses that provide a product for on-site public use—the court prioritized the public policy of protecting consumers over the technical legal relationship between the parties. This precedent shifts the focus from whether a sale or lease occurred to whether the defendant was an integral part of the commercial enterprise that made the product available. The ruling paves the way for strict liability claims in other service-based contexts where customers use equipment provided by a business, such as bowling alleys or amusement parks.
Unlock the full brief for Garcia v. Halsett