Gibson v. Garcia
216 P.2d 119, 96 Cal. App. 2d 681, 1950 Cal. App. LEXIS 1428 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's original negligent act which creates a hazardous condition is a proximate cause of an injury, even if the injury is triggered by an independent, intervening act of a third party, so long as the original negligence continues to the time of injury and is a substantial factor in causing it.
Facts:
- Los Angeles Transit Lines maintained wooden utility poles adjacent to the curbing on Whittier Boulevard, a heavily traveled highway.
- The company allegedly allowed one of its poles to become rotten and structurally impaired by termites or rot over a long period.
- Gibson was standing on the sidewalk near this specific rotten pole.
- Paul Garcia negligently drove his car, causing it to leave the roadway and collide with the pole.
- The impact caused the rotten pole to break a short distance above the ground.
- The broken pole then fell and struck Gibson, causing her severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gibson sued Paul Garcia and Los Angeles Transit Lines in a California trial court for personal injuries.
- Gibson secured a default judgment against Garcia, which remained unsatisfied.
- Defendant Los Angeles Transit Lines filed a demurrer to Gibson's complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor of Los Angeles Transit Lines.
- Gibson (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California District 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 defendant's negligence in maintaining a dangerously weakened utility pole constitute a proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries when the pole falls on the plaintiff only after being struck by a third party's negligently driven vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Shinn, P. J.
Yes, a defendant's negligence in maintaining a dangerously weakened utility pole can constitute a proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries even when triggered by a third party's negligent driving. The court reasoned that proximate causation is not automatically broken by an independent intervening force. If the defendant's original negligence—the rotten pole—continues to the time of the injury and contributes substantially to it in conjunction with the intervening act, both acts can be considered proximate concurring causes. The law does not require that the precise manner of the harm be foreseeable; rather, it is sufficient that the defendant's conduct created a foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred. The court concluded that it is a question of fact for a jury to determine whether a sound pole would have broken under the same impact, which would determine if the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of concurrent causation in negligence law, affirming that an original tortfeasor cannot escape liability merely because a later, intervening act was the immediate cause of harm. The ruling clarifies that the test for foreseeability in the context of intervening causes relates to the general nature of the risk created, not the specific mechanics of the accident. This makes it more difficult for defendants to have cases dismissed at an early stage by claiming an intervening act was unforeseeable as a matter of law, instead preserving the question of causation for the jury as a trier of fact.
