RONALD M. v. White
1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2472, 169 Cal. Rptr. 370, 112 Cal. App. 3d 473 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere presence or membership in a social group, without more, does not create a legal duty for one person to control the conduct of another or to protect another from harm, nor does it establish civil liability for 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor' where the harm suffered is not of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
Facts:
- Ronald M., a 14-year-old minor, was one of 10 minors who were occupants of a motor vehicle on July 11, 1978.
- The group of minors had spent a day of leisure together, during which some, including the driver Tim Cantrell, consumed alcohol, marijuana, and 'Angel Dust.'
- Jennifer White and Billie Boyd, also minors, were present throughout the day and in the vehicle.
- White and Boyd did not themselves consume any alcohol or drugs, nor did they furnish or help to pay for any.
- White and Boyd did not drive the car at any time.
- The minor driver, Tim Cantrell, operated the vehicle in a dangerous manner, causing it to crash.
- The crash seriously injured Ronald M.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald M. (plaintiff) sued Jennifer White and Billie Boyd (defendants), among other minors, for injuries sustained in a car crash.
- Defendants White and Boyd filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of White and Boyd, removing them from the litigation.
- Ronald M. (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
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 mere presence among a group of minors consuming alcohol and drugs create a legal duty for non-participating minors to prevent a peer's tortious conduct or protect an injured peer, thereby establishing civil liability under Penal Code section 272?
Opinions:
Majority - Paras, Acting P. J.
No, mere presence and membership in a social group of minors, without active participation in the delinquent behavior, does not create a legal duty for civil liability or satisfy the requirements for 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor.' The court found no showing that Jennifer White and Billie Boyd themselves did anything in violation of Penal Code section 272, as they were simply present. Furthermore, the court expressed doubt that as minors themselves, their actions would constitute a violation or that civil damages would flow from such a violation. Crucially, the court found no causal relationship reasonably demonstrated between White and Boyd's actions (or inactions) and Ronald M.'s injury. The trial judge's decision to remove these two defendants via summary judgment was affirmed.
Concurring - Carr, J.
No, mere membership in a social group does not create a legal duty on each member to act for the protection of every other member. Justice Carr emphasized that responsibility for tortious conduct requires a legal duty, which is imposed by contract, statute, or otherwise. In the absence of a 'special relationship,' there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent physical harm, and mere presence in a social group does not constitute such a special relationship (citing Rest.2d Torts, § 315). The concurrence found no evidence that the defendants did any act which contributed to Ronald M.'s delinquency under Penal Code section 272, noting they did not provide or consume alcohol/drugs. While acknowledging the potential social/psychological significance of peer pressure, Justice Carr stated it creates no legal duty. Furthermore, the court held that Penal Code section 272 has not been extended to encompass a mere failure to stop a minor from delinquent conduct. Even if a violation of section 272 were assumed, the harm suffered by Ronald M. (a car accident) was not the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent, as its purpose is to protect minors from leading 'idle, dissolute, lewd or immoral lives,' not from injuries related to intoxicated driving.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the limits of legal duty in social settings, particularly among minors. It reinforces the principle that civil liability for negligence requires an identifiable legal duty, not merely social or moral obligations or passive presence. The ruling also narrows the application of 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor' statutes in civil contexts, emphasizing the need for direct causation and ensuring the harm aligns with the statute's intended purpose, thus making it more difficult to hold bystanders liable for the actions of others within a social group.
