Maloney v. Rath
71 Cal. Rptr. 897, 445 P.2d 513, 69 Cal.2d 442 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motor vehicle owner has a statutory duty to maintain the vehicle's brakes in safe working order, and this duty is nondelegable, meaning the owner is vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor hired to perform brake maintenance.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Maloney stopped her car in a left-turn lane while waiting for a traffic signal.
- About three months prior, Defendant Rath had the brakes on her car completely overhauled by a mechanic, Peter Evanchik.
- Approximately two weeks before the incident, Rath's car was in a separate collision, after which Evanchik inspected and repaired the vehicle, though no work was done on the brakes at that time.
- Rath turned into the lane behind Maloney and attempted to apply her brakes.
- The brakes failed, causing Rath's car to collide with Maloney's car.
- An investigation revealed the brake failure was due to a rupture in a hydraulic hose caused by faulty installation during the overhaul by Evanchik.
- Rath neither knew nor had reason to know that her brakes were defective until the moment they failed.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Maloney filed a lawsuit against Defendant Rath in a California trial court for personal injury and property damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Rath.
- The trial court entered a judgment for Rath and denied Maloney's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Maloney, as appellant, appealed the judgment and the denial of her motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a motor vehicle owner liable for injuries resulting from a brake failure caused by the negligence of an independent contractor hired to maintain the brakes, even if the owner was not personally negligent?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C. J.
Yes. A motor vehicle owner is liable for injuries resulting from a brake failure caused by an independent contractor's negligence because the statutory duty to maintain brakes in safe working order is nondelegable. While the court declines to impose strict liability for a violation of the Vehicle Code, it establishes that certain statutory safety duties cannot be delegated to an independent contractor to escape liability. Public policy demands that the person who owns, operates, and benefits from a potentially dangerous instrumentality like a car bears the ultimate responsibility for its safe maintenance. The court relied on the principles articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, particularly sections 423 and 424, which impose liability on an employer for a contractor's negligence when the work involves a grave risk of harm or is governed by statutory safety regulations. Therefore, because Rath's mechanic was negligent and the duty to maintain safe brakes is nondelegable, Rath is liable for the damages caused by that negligence.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
No. The judgment in favor of the defendant should be affirmed. The dissent would adopt the reasoning of the intermediate Court of Appeal, which would have absolved the defendant of liability because she exercised reasonable care by hiring a mechanic and was not personally negligent.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent by creating a nondelegable duty for statutory auto safety requirements, particularly brake maintenance. By rejecting a strict liability standard but embracing vicarious liability, the court threads a needle between two tort doctrines. This decision holds vehicle owners responsible for the negligence of their chosen mechanics, effectively shifting the risk of contractor negligence from the innocent public to the owner, who is in a better position to select a competent contractor and insure against the risk. The ruling reinforces the principle that duties imposed by safety statutes intended to protect the public from grave harm cannot be contracted away.
Unlock the full brief for Maloney v. Rath