Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel
3 Cal. 3d 756, 478 P.2d 465, 91 Cal. Rptr. 745 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant's violation of a safety statute makes it impossible for a plaintiff to prove that the violation was a proximate cause of the resulting injury, the burden of proof on the issue of causation shifts to the defendant to prove that their negligence was not the cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Morris M. Haft and his five-year-old son, Mark Haft, were guests at the Lone Palm Hotel, operated by the defendants.
- On June 26, 1961, Mr. Haft and Mark went to use the motel's swimming pool.
- The motel had failed to comply with numerous state safety regulations for public pools, of which they had been previously notified.
- Specifically, there was no lifeguard on duty, and no sign was posted warning guests that lifeguard services were not provided, a direct violation of a state statute.
- Other required safety measures, including depth markings, warning signs for children, and rescue equipment like a 12-foot life pole, were also absent.
- Mr. Haft and Mark were last seen alive playing in the pool by another guest; they were the only two people in the pool area.
- No one witnessed the actual drownings.
- More than a half-hour after they were last seen, their bodies were discovered submerged in the deep end of the pool.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Ethel Haft and Roberta Haft filed a wrongful death action against the Lone Palm Hotel and its operators in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (trial court).
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of evidence, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict on liability.
- The court refused plaintiffs' request to instruct the jury that the five-year-old decedent, Mark Haft, was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendants based on the jury's verdict.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment directly 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 the burden of proof on the issue of causation shift to a defendant when their violation of a safety statute, which was intended to prevent the type of harm that occurred, also makes it impossible for the plaintiff to produce direct evidence of the causal link between the violation and the harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tobriner
Yes. When a defendant's negligence creates an evidentiary void that prevents a plaintiff from proving causation, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove their negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury. The court reasoned that the defendants violated Health & Safety Code § 24101.4 by failing either to provide a lifeguard or to post a sign warning of the absence of one. This failure constituted negligence as a matter of law. The purpose of this statute is to prevent drownings, and the presence of a lifeguard serves the dual function of rescuing those in danger and witnessing accidents that occur. By failing to provide a lifeguard, the defendants not only deprived the decedents of protection but also deprived the plaintiffs of a key witness who could establish the cause of the deaths. The court concluded it would be unjust to allow the defendants to benefit from the lack of evidence that their own negligence created. Citing the principles of fairness from cases like Summers v. Tice and Ybarra v. Spangard, the court held that once the plaintiffs established the statutory violation, the defendants had the burden to show the absence of a lifeguard was not a cause of the deaths. The court also held that as a matter of law, the five-year-old child, Mark, could not be found contributorily negligent for entering the pool under the direct supervision of his father.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the traditional allocation of the burden of proof in certain negligence cases. It establishes a powerful precedent for plaintiffs when a defendant's violation of a safety statute is the very reason direct evidence of causation is unavailable. By shifting the burden, the court prevents defendants from using the evidentiary vacuum they created as a shield against liability. This ruling strengthens the enforcement of public safety statutes by ensuring that defendants who create a dangerous condition cannot escape responsibility simply because there are no witnesses to the resulting harm. The principle has broad implications for cases involving unwitnessed accidents where a legally required safety measure, such as a monitor or a safety guard, was absent.
Unlock the full brief for Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel