Peterson v. Superior Court
10 Cal.4th 1185, 899 P.2d 905, 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 836 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Landlords and hotel proprietors are not subject to strict liability under a products liability theory for injuries to tenants or guests caused by a latent defect in the premises. Liability for such injuries must be based on negligence.
Facts:
- Nadine L. Peterson was a guest at the Palm Springs Marquis Hotel.
- While taking a shower, Peterson slipped and fell in the bathtub.
- As a result of the fall, Peterson sustained serious head injuries.
- Peterson alleged that the bottom surface of the bathtub was 'extremely slick and slippery' and that it lacked safety measures such as anti-skid surfaces or grab rails.
Procedural Posture:
- Nadine L. Peterson sued the owners and operator of the Palm Springs Marquis Hotel in superior court (trial court), alleging causes of action for negligence and strict liability in tort.
- Prior to trial, the hotel defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude Peterson from arguing that strict liability applied to the case.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, ruling as a matter of law that the strict liability holding of Becker v. IRM Corp. did not apply to hotel proprietors.
- After a mistrial on unrelated grounds, the trial court confirmed its ruling on strict liability for the retrial.
- Peterson filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal to challenge the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal initially denied the petition, but the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to issue an alternative writ.
- Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeal held that the writ should be issued, concluding that the Becker decision did apply to hotel proprietors.
- The hotel defendants (appellants in this court) petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which was granted.
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 doctrine of strict products liability apply to a hotel proprietor for injuries to a guest caused by a latent defect in the hotel premises?
Opinions:
Majority - George, J.
No. The doctrine of strict products liability does not apply to landlords or hotel proprietors for latent defects in the premises because they are not part of the manufacturing or marketing enterprise of the allegedly defective product. This court overrules its prior decision in Becker v. IRM Corp., which improperly extended strict liability to residential landlords. The policy justifications for strict products liability—such as the ability to exert pressure on manufacturers for safer products and spread costs through the chain of distribution—do not apply to landlords or hotel proprietors who generally have no continuing business relationship with the manufacturer of a component part like a bathtub. Imposing strict liability would unjustly make them insurers of their tenants' and guests' safety for defects they did not create and could not reasonably discover. The implied warranty of habitability provides a basis for a negligence claim if breached, but it does not support imposing liability without fault.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant retreat from the expansion of strict products liability in California, explicitly overruling the court's prior holding in Becker v. IRM Corp. By realigning California with the majority of jurisdictions, the court has clarified the boundaries of the 'stream of commerce' concept, distinguishing providers of premises from manufacturers and distributors of products. The ruling reinforces that negligence, which requires proof of a breach of the duty of reasonable care, is the proper standard for landlord and hotel proprietor liability for injuries on the premises. This holding limits the ability of plaintiffs to recover without proving fault and protects property owners from being held liable as insurers for defects they did not create or have knowledge of.
