Hergenrether v. East

Supreme Court of California · 1964 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyForeseeabilityIntervening criminal actsunattended vehiclekeys in ignitiontheft

Facts

Defendant East, acting within authority given by defendant Christy, parked Christy's partially loaded 2-ton truck on California Street in Redding while seeking food and lodging. He left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition, with personal property in the cab and valuable equipment, guns, and a barrel of gasoline in the truck, intending to leave it there from midafternoon through the night in a neighborhood shown by plaintiffs' evidence to be Redding's long-established skid row, heavily frequented by drunks, derelicts, vagrants, and persons repeatedly arrested, including for some automobile thefts. During the night the truck was stolen, and around 1 a.m. an unidentified driver was weaving across the center line on Highway 99 and collided head-on with the car carrying plaintiffs, seriously injuring them. Plaintiffs' evidence on the neighborhood's character had to be taken as true because the case came to the court after judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Issue

Whether defendants who left an unlocked 2-ton truck with keys in the ignition overnight in a skid-row area owed a duty to third persons injured when an unidentified thief stole the truck and negligently drove it into plaintiffs' vehicle. More specifically, the question was whether special circumstances existed that made the risk of theft and ensuing injury sufficiently foreseeable and unreasonable to impose liability despite the intervening criminal act of the thief.

Rule

Although ordinarily there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent harm to another, liability may be imposed when special circumstances make the risk created by leaving a vehicle unattended unreasonable. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and a duty to third persons may arise where the circumstances in combination create a greater potentiality of foreseeable risk or more serious injury, or where the burden of preventive action is slight.

🔒

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 Fresno, Nolan Price parked his employer's unlocked step van on a street lined with bars, pawn shops, and a rescue mission in an area local police had long described as a gathering place for intoxicated transients and repeat petty offenders. He left the keys in the ignition from late afternoon until the next morning, and during the night a thief stole the van and struck Priya Desai in a head-on collision.

If Priya sues Nolan and the employer for negligence, which is the strongest argument that they owed her a duty?

Explanation. The majority held there is ordinarily no duty to control a third person's criminal conduct, but special circumstances may create one. Relevant circumstances include a lawless or intoxicated neighborhood, extended overnight exposure, and a vehicle with unusual capacity to inflict serious harm. Under that reasoning, duty could be found here.