Ronald M. v. White

Court of Appeals of California, Third District · 1980 · Torts

Tortssummary judgmentdutycausationPenal Code section 272contributing to delinquencymere presenceminor defendants

Facts

Plaintiff, age 14, was one of 10 minors in a motor vehicle when the minor driver dangerously operated the car and crashed, seriously injuring plaintiff. Earlier that day, the group spent leisure time together, and some consumed alcohol, marijuana, and Angel Dust. White and Boyd were present throughout the day and were passengers like plaintiff, but they did not consume alcohol or drugs, did not furnish or help pay for them, and never drove the car. Plaintiff argued they contributed to his delinquency and resulting injuries.

Issue

Whether passenger minors who were merely present with a group in which some minors consumed alcohol and drugs, but who themselves did not consume, furnish, pay for, or drive, could be held liable for plaintiff's injuries on a theory that they contributed to his delinquency under Penal Code section 272 or otherwise owed him a duty of care.

Rule

Mere presence with minors who engage in alcohol or drug use does not, without more, constitute conduct violative of Penal Code section 272 or create tort liability. To impose liability, there must be some showing that the defendant did something contributing to delinquency and a reasonably demonstrated causal relationship between that conduct and the plaintiff's injury.

🔒

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, 16-year-old Leo Ramirez spent an afternoon at a park with several other teenagers. Two of them drank vodka and later one intoxicated teen drove the group to a convenience store, crashing and injuring Leo; Maya Chen, another passenger, had not drunk, paid for alcohol, supplied it, or driven.

Leo sues Maya for negligence, arguing that her presence as part of the group helped normalize the drinking and created a duty to protect him. Which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is that mere presence with minors who engage in alcohol or drug use, without more, is insufficient to establish a violation or tort duty. The court rejected the idea that social-group membership alone creates a legal duty to protect other members. Here, Maya neither consumed, furnished, paid for, nor drove, so the claim fails on the same logic.