MALONEY v. RATH Sup. Ct. of Cal., 69 Cal. 2d 442 (1968). CASE BRIEF

MALONEY V. RATH

Sup. Ct. of Cal., 69 Cal. 2d 442 (1968)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Maloney (P) appealed from an order, which entered judgment denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in her action for personal injury and property damages arising from an automobile accident.

FACTS: Maloney (P) brought this action to recover damages for injuries to her person and property incurred in an automobile accident. She appeals from an adverse judgment and from an order denying her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability. P stopped her car in a left-turn lane to wait for a traffic signal to change. Rath (D) turned into the left-turn lane behind P and stepped on her brake pedal. D's brakes failed, and a collision ensued. D neither knew nor had reason to know that her brakes were defective until they failed. The failure was caused by a rupture in a hydraulic hose that gave no warning to D of its impending occurrence. D had the brakes completely overhauled by Peter Evanchik of Pete's Chevron Station about three months before the accident. Later, about two weeks before the accident, the car was involved in another collision, and D's husband had Evanchik inspect and repair it. Nothing was done to the brakes at that time. D's expert witness testified that the brakes failed because of a hole in the hydraulic hose that was caused by rubbing of the hose against the right front wheel. The rubbing resulted from faulty installation of the hose at the time the brakes were overhauled. A qualified person inspecting the brakes before they failed would have detected the faulty installation and the evidence of the rubbing. At the time of the accident section 26300 of the Vehicle Code provided that every motor vehicle 'shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of the vehicle and to stop and hold the vehicle,' and section 26453 provided that all 'Brakes and component parts thereof shall be maintained . . . in good working order.' A defendant's failure to comply with these provisions gives rise to a presumption of negligence that he may rebut by proof 'that he did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.' The trial court gave the judgment to D; she was not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner