Li v. Yellow Cab Co.

Supreme Court of California · 1975 · Torts

Tortscontributory negligencecomparative faultCaliforniapure comparativecontributory negligencecomparative negligencepure comparative fault

Facts

At about 9 p.m., plaintiff Nga Li was driving northbound on Alvarado Street in Los Angeles and stopped about 70 feet before the intersection of Third Street before beginning a left turn across three southbound lanes to enter a service-station driveway. Defendant Phillips, driving a Yellow Cab southbound, came over the crest of a hill, entered the intersection at about 30 miles per hour, and collided with the right rear of plaintiff's car. The trial court found Phillips's speed unsafe and found the light was yellow for southbound traffic when he entered the intersection. The court also found plaintiff turned left when an oncoming vehicle was so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, and therefore held her contributory negligence barred recovery.

Issue

Should the California Supreme Court judicially abolish the doctrine of contributory negligence, under which any plaintiff negligence bars recovery, and replace it with a system of comparative negligence? If so, does Civil Code section 1714 prevent the court from making that change, and what form of comparative negligence should California adopt?

Rule

In California negligence actions resulting in injury to person or property, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery; instead, damages are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. California adopts the pure form of comparative negligence, under which apportionment applies even if the plaintiff is equally or more at fault than the defendant. Last clear chance is abolished, and assumption of risk is abolished to the extent it is merely a variant of contributory negligence, both being subsumed into comparative fault.

🔒

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 San Diego, Marisol Vega sped through a residential block at 45 mph in a 25-mph zone and struck Devon Pike, who stepped into the street while texting and not using the crosswalk 20 feet away. A jury finds Devon suffered $200,000 in damages and allocates fault 70% to Devon and 30% to Marisol.

In a California negligence action for personal injury, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. California adopted pure comparative negligence for negligence actions involving injury to person or property. A plaintiff's contributory negligence no longer bars recovery, even if the plaintiff is equally or more at fault than the defendant; damages are diminished in proportion to the plaintiff's negligence. Here, Devon's $200,000 award is reduced by 70%, leaving $60,000.