Maloney v. Rath

Supreme Court of California · 1968 · Torts

69 Cal. 2d 442 (1968)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsnondelegable dutyindependent contractorautomobile brakesVehicle Codepresumption of negligencestrict liability rejectedstatutory safety duty

Facts

Plaintiff was stopped in a left-turn lane when defendant pulled in behind her and pressed the brake pedal, but the brakes failed and defendant's car struck plaintiff's car. Defendant did not know and had no reason to know of any brake defect before the failure. The brakes had been overhauled by a mechanic three months earlier, and after a later collision the same mechanic inspected and repaired the car without working on the brakes. Expert testimony showed the brake failure resulted from a hydraulic hose rubbing against the right front wheel because of faulty installation during the overhaul, a defect that a qualified mechanic would have detected before the accident.

Issue

Whether a motorist whose brakes fail without personal fault is nevertheless liable because the Vehicle Code imposes strict liability, or because the statutory duty to maintain adequate brakes is nondelegable so that the motorist remains responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor mechanic.

Rule

A violation of the Vehicle Code provisions requiring adequate brakes and maintenance in good working order does not impose strict liability; it creates a presumption of negligence that may be rebutted by proof that the defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person seeking to comply with the law. However, the duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain automobile brakes in compliance with those statutory provisions is nondelegable, so an owner-operator is liable for harm caused by the negligence of an independent contractor in overhauling or inspecting the brakes.

🔒

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, Lena Ortiz was driving home when her car rolled through an intersection after the brake pedal suddenly went to the floor. Six weeks earlier she had taken the car to Riverbend Auto Care, an independent repair shop, for a complete brake overhaul, and the defect was a hidden misinstalled brake line that only a mechanic would have detected before the crash.

In a suit by the injured driver of the other car, which is the strongest statement of Lena's liability?

Explanation. The majority rejected strict liability for brake failures. Violation of the brake statutes creates only a rebuttable presumption of negligence. But the owner-operator's duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain brakes in statutory compliance is nondelegable, so negligent maintenance by an independent contractor is no defense.