Myrick v. Mastagni
111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 165, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 923, 185 Cal. App. 4th 1082 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory deadline for retrofitting a hazardous building sets a minimum standard of care and does not shield the owner from common law negligence liability for failing to act sooner. Furthermore, Civil Code § 1431.2, which limits liability for non-economic damages to a defendant's proportionate fault, does not apply to members of a joint venture, who are jointly and severally liable for the venture's torts.
Facts:
- In 1973, Mary and Armand Mastagni purchased the Acorn Building, a 111-year-old unreinforced masonry structure.
- In 1989, the City of Paso Robles identified the Acorn Building as potentially hazardous during an earthquake and notified the Mastagnis.
- In 1992, the city enacted an ordinance requiring seismic retrofitting, and in 1993 notified the owners they had 15 years to comply.
- Ownership interests in the building were subsequently transferred to various family trusts, with Mary Mastagni managing the property on behalf of all entities.
- In 1998, the city extended the compliance deadline to 2018.
- Also in 1998, the owners hired a structural engineer who identified the building's seismic deficiencies and prepared retrofitting plans, but the owners did not complete the work.
- On December 22, 2003, the San Simeon earthquake struck, causing a portion of the unretrofitted Acorn Building to collapse.
- Jennifer Lynn Myrick and Marilyn Frost-Zafuto, who were working in the building, were killed by the collapsing structure after they fled to the street.
Procedural Posture:
- The survivors of Myrick and Frost-Zafuto brought a wrongful death action based on general negligence against the building’s owners in a California trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found the defendants negligent.
- The jury also made a special finding that the defendants were all involved in a joint venture for the ownership and operation of the Acorn Building.
- The jury awarded plaintiffs $1.2 million and $700,000, respectively, in non-economic damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment holding all defendants jointly and severally liable for the total award.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the California 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 city ordinance that establishes a future deadline for seismic retrofitting of hazardous buildings shield a property owner from common law negligence liability for injuries occurring before that deadline?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, P. J.
No, an ordinance setting a future deadline for safety compliance does not shield a property owner from negligence liability for failing to address a known hazard before that date. The court held that a statute or ordinance typically defines a minimum standard of conduct, not the exclusive one. A property owner's common law duty to use ordinary care in managing their property may require taking precautions beyond, or sooner than, those mandated by a statute. Here, the overriding purpose of the seismic retrofit ordinance was public safety. To rule that the owners had no duty until the 2018 deadline would frustrate the very policy the ordinance was designed to promote. The court distinguished this case from those involving highly regulated industries or federal preemption, finding no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that statutory compliance is not a complete defense to negligence. The court also addressed a second issue, holding that Civil Code § 1431.2's limitation on joint and several liability for non-economic damages does not apply to defendants in a joint venture. The jury found that the various family members and trusts were engaged in a joint venture to own and operate the Acorn Building. The incidents of a joint venture are the same as a partnership, where partners are vicariously liable for the torts of the partnership. This form of vicarious liability is distinct from the comparative fault principles that § 1431.2 was designed to address. Therefore, all members of the joint venture were correctly held jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of non-economic damages.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that statutory compliance is a floor, not a ceiling, for the standard of care in negligence actions. It serves as a strong caution to property owners and businesses that they cannot use a distant regulatory deadline as an excuse to delay rectifying known, serious hazards. The decision affirms that the common law duty of reasonable care exists independently of statutory schemes. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the scope of Proposition 51 (Civ. Code § 1431.2), confirming that it does not dismantle the established doctrine of joint and several liability for business partners or joint venturers, thereby preserving a plaintiff's ability to achieve a full recovery from any member of the business enterprise.
