Gyerman v. United States Lines Co.
7 Cal. 3d 488, 498 P.2d 1043, 102 Cal. Rptr. 795 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, a defendant must prove not only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of ordinary care, but also that this negligent conduct was a proximate cause—a substantial factor—in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.
Facts:
- John Gyerman, a longshoreman employed by Associated Banning, was assigned to work in a warehouse operated by United States Lines Company.
- Gyerman's job was to use a forklift to move and restack 100-pound burlap sacks of fishmeal that were stacked on pallets.
- Upon arriving, Gyerman observed that the sacks were stacked in an unusually dangerous manner: they were too high and not 'bulkheaded' (interlocked for stability).
- Gyerman complained about the hazardous condition to Kenneth Noel, a marine clerk for United States Lines.
- Noel responded, 'John, there is nothing I can do about it. Just do the best you know how.'
- Gyerman continued to work for four days under these conditions.
- On the fourth day, a dozen or more sacks fell from a load Gyerman was moving, ricocheted off the forklift's protective canopy, and struck him, causing serious injuries.
- Under the governing union contract and industry custom, a longshoreman who encounters an unsafe condition is supposed to stop work and report it to his own supervisor.
Procedural Posture:
- John Gyerman sued United States Lines Company in trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict for the defendant, United States Lines.
- The trial court granted Gyerman's motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.
- United States Lines, as appellant, appealed the order for a new trial to the Court of Appeal, and Gyerman was the appellee.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the new trial order.
- The case was retried before a judge without a jury, based on the transcript of the first trial.
- The trial court found United States Lines was negligent but also found Gyerman was contributorily negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries, entering judgment for the defendant.
- Gyerman, as appellant, appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court of California, with United States Lines as the appellee.
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, in asserting the affirmative defense of contributory negligence, meet its burden of proof by showing the plaintiff acted negligently, without also proving that the plaintiff's negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A defendant does not meet its burden of proof for the affirmative defense of contributory negligence by merely showing the plaintiff acted negligently; the defendant must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm. The burden of proving all aspects of an affirmative defense, including both breach of duty and causation, rests on the defendant. Here, while there was sufficient evidence to find that Gyerman was negligent in failing to report the unsafe condition to his own supervisor as required by custom and contract, United States Lines failed to carry its burden on the issue of causation. United States Lines presented no evidence to show that if Gyerman had reported the condition to his own supervisor, the dangerous stacks would have been made safer or the accident would have been prevented. The defendant's theory that the situation would have been corrected was based on mere conjecture and speculation, which is insufficient to establish proximate cause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the essential elements of the contributory negligence defense, particularly the burden of proof regarding causation. The court's holding prevents defendants from defeating a negligence claim simply by pointing to a plaintiff's failure to follow a safety rule. It establishes that a defendant must affirmatively prove a direct causal link between the plaintiff's breach of duty and the resulting injury. This decision reinforces the principle that the burden of proof for an affirmative defense lies entirely with the party asserting it and cannot be met with speculation about what might have happened. This is particularly significant in workplace injury cases, where an employee's perceived negligence might be disconnected from the employer-created hazard that was the primary cause of the harm.
Unlock the full brief for Gyerman v. United States Lines Co.