Richardson v. Ham
1955 Cal. LEXIS 274, 285 P.2d 269, 44 Cal. 2d 772 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of an inherently dangerous and massive piece of machinery has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the public from harm caused by its operation by foreseeable intermeddlers, as the extreme danger and attractiveness of the machine constitute special circumstances creating this duty.
Facts:
- Defendants, a construction partnership, used two 26-ton bulldozers for work on top of a mesa.
- The bulldozers could be started without an ignition key by pushing a compression lever and stepping on the starter, and could be started in gear, causing them to move immediately.
- At the end of a workday, defendants' employees parked the bulldozers on the mesa.
- One bulldozer was left improperly secured; a padlock was used without its necessary sleeve, which failed to prevent the starter from operating.
- The following evening, three intoxicated young men decided to go to the mesa to race the bulldozers.
- The young men successfully started the improperly secured bulldozer and drove it around the mesa.
- Unable to stop the machine, they aimed it toward a canyon and abandoned it while it was still in motion.
- The uncontrolled bulldozer traveled for about a mile, going down a hill, across a freeway, and through a house, causing serious personal injuries and property damage to the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued the defendants, a construction partnership, in a California trial court for negligence.
- The various actions were consolidated for a single trial.
- A jury returned verdicts in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs filed motions for a new trial, which the trial court granted on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and misconduct of the jury.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the California Supreme Court.
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 owner of a 26-ton bulldozer have a legal duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by the bulldozer's operation by foreseeable intermeddlers when the owner fails to secure the machine against such intervention?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes. An owner of a bulldozer has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect third parties from injuries arising from its operation by intermeddlers. Unlike automobiles, which do not typically arouse curiosity, bulldozers are uncommon, attract curious spectators, and are difficult for unskilled persons to operate or stop. The extreme danger created by a 26-ton bulldozer in uncontrolled motion and the foreseeable risk of intermeddling fully justify imposing this duty. The intentional misconduct of the young men was not a superseding cause because the realizable likelihood of such an act is one of the hazards that makes the failure to secure the bulldozer negligent in the first place, under the principle articulated in Restatement of Torts, § 449.
Concurring - Spence, J.
Yes. While this case is distinguishable from Richards v. Stanley, which involved a stolen automobile, the justice adheres to his dissenting view in that prior case, indicating a broader belief in an owner's duty to prevent unauthorized use.
Concurring - Carter, J.
Yes. The determination of whether the defendants' conduct met the standard of a reasonably prudent person is a question for the trier of fact. The trial court, by granting a new trial on the grounds of insufficient evidence, made a factual determination that defendants may have breached their duty of care. An appellate court should not arbitrarily establish a standard of conduct and should only reverse the trial court's order if there was a gross abuse of discretion, which was not present here given the evidence of foreseeability and danger.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant 'special circumstances' exception to the general rule that an owner is not liable for the acts of a thief who steals their vehicle. By distinguishing the unique dangers of a bulldozer from those of an automobile, the court broadened the concept of foreseeable risk to include intentional and criminal tampering with uniquely dangerous instrumentalities. This decision limits the superseding cause doctrine, clarifying that an intervening criminal act does not break the chain of causation if the likelihood of that act is the very reason the defendant's conduct is considered negligent. It places a higher burden of care on owners of heavy, industrial, or otherwise unusually dangerous equipment left in public or semi-public spaces.
