Gibson v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal · 1950 · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate Causenegligenceproximate causeintervening causesuperseding causeconcurrent cause

Facts

Los Angeles Transit Lines operated a street railway system and maintained wooden poles next to the curb on Whittier Boulevard near Spence Street. Plaintiff was standing on the sidewalk near one of the poles when Paul Garcia negligently drove a 1938 Plymouth into it. The complaint alleged the pole was rotten and badly weakened by rot or termites for a long period, that defendant knew or should have known of that condition, and that because the boulevard was a heavily traveled highway, defendant should have anticipated that automobiles might strike the pole and cause it to fall on pedestrians. The pole broke a short distance above the ground and fell on plaintiff, causing severe injuries.

Issue

Whether the complaint stated a cause of action against the transit company by adequately alleging that its negligent maintenance of a rotten pole could be a proximate concurring cause of plaintiff's injuries, even though the immediate impact came from a negligently driven automobile. More specifically, the question was whether Garcia's collision was, as a matter of law, a superseding cause that cut off the transit company's liability.

Rule

A utility or similar pole owner must exercise ordinary care to keep poles in a safe condition and strong enough to withstand violence that reasonably may be anticipated along a busy highway. An independent intervening act does not necessarily break proximate causation: if the defendant's negligence continues to the time of injury and is a substantial factor contributing to the harm, it may be a proximate concurring cause even if the precise intervening act or the manner in which the harm occurred was not foreseeable. Whether an intervening act is concurrent or superseding ordinarily presents a question of fact.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Valley Street Rail maintains a wooden signal pole next to a crowded downtown sidewalk along a busy avenue. The pole has long been hollowed by decay, a condition the company knew or should have known about. Nina Flores is injured when a distracted driver clips the pole at low speed, causing it to snap and fall onto her.

If Nina sues Valley Street Rail for negligence, which is the best analysis of proximate cause?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an independent intervening act does not necessarily cut off liability. If the defendant's negligence continues to the time of injury and substantially contributes to the harm, both acts may be proximate concurring causes. The exact intervening act need not have been foreseen.