Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/li-v-yellow-cab-co-27850
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:54:52+00:00

Document:
Home > Opinions > Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
Hall, Moore & Norkin and Joseph E. Hall for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mestad & Sanborn, John B. Mestad, Robert E. Cartwright, Edward I. Pollock, William H. Lally, Stephen I. Zetterberg, Robert G. Beloud, [13 Cal.3d 808] David B. Baum and Leonard Sacks as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hagenbaugh & Murphy, Herbert F. Blanck and William D. Stewart for Defendants and Respondents.
Ives, Kirwan & Dibble, Martin J. Kirwan, Robert A. Seligson, Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, Roger E. Kelly, Ellis J. Horvitz and Arthur E. Schwimmer as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
In this case we address the grave and recurrent question whether we should judicially declare no longer applicable in California courts the doctrine of contributory negligence, which bars all recovery when the plaintiff's negligent conduct has contributed as a legal cause in any degree to the harm suffered by him, and hold that it must give way to a system of comparative negligence, which assesses liability in direct proportion to fault. As we explain in detail infra, we conclude that we should. In the course of reaching our ultimate decision we conclude that: (1) The doctrine of comparative negligence is preferable to the "all-or-nothing" doctrine of contributory negligence from the point of view of logic, practical experience, and fundamental justice; (2) judicial action in this area is not precluded by the presence of section 1714 of the Civil Code, which has been said to "codify" the "all-or-nothing" rule and to render it immune from attack in the courts except on constitutional grounds; (3) given the possibility of judicial action, certain practical difficulties attendant upon the adoption of comparative negligence should not dissuade us from charting a new course -- leaving the resolution of some of these problems to future judicial or legislative action; (4) the doctrine of comparative negligence should be applied in this state in its so-called "pure" form under which the assessment of liability in proportion to fault proceeds in spite of the fact that the plaintiff is equally at fault as or more at fault than the defendant; and finally (5) this new rule should be given a limited retrospective application.
The accident here in question occurred near the intersection of Alvarado Street and Third Street in Los Angeles. At this intersection [13 Cal.3d 809] Third Street runs in a generally east-west direction along the crest of a hill, and Alvarado Street, running generally north and south, rises gently to the crest from either direction. At approximately 9 p.m. on November 21, 1968, plaintiff Nga Li was proceeding northbound on Alvarado in her 1967 Oldsmobile. She was in the inside lane, and about 70 feet before she reached the Third Street intersection she stopped and then began a left turn across the three southbound lanes of Alvarado, intending to enter the driveway of a service station. At this time defendant Robert Phillips, an employee of defendant Yellow Cab Company, was driving a company-owned taxicab southbound in the middle lane on Alvarado. He came over the crest of the hill, passed through the intersection, and collided with the right rear portion of plaintiff's automobile, resulting in personal injuries to plaintiff as well as considerable damage to the automobile.
The court, sitting without a jury, found as facts that defendant Phillips was traveling at approximately 30 miles per hour when he entered the intersection, that such speed was unsafe at that time and place, and that the traffic light controlling southbound traffic at the intersection was yellow when defendant Phillips drove into the intersection. It also found, however, that plaintiff's left turn across the southbound lanes of Alvarado "was made at a time when a vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." The dispositive conclusion of law was as follows: "That the driving of Nga Li was negligent, that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision, and that she is barred from recovery by reason of such contributory negligence." Judgment for defendants was entered accordingly.
This rule, rooted in the long-standing principle that one should not recover from another for damages brought upon oneself (see Baltimore & P.R. Co. v. Jones (1877) 95 U.S. 439, 442 [24 L.Ed. 506, 507]; Buckley v. Chadwick (1955) 45 Cal.2d 183, 192 [288 P.2d 12, 289 P.2d 242]), has been the law of this state from its beginning. (See Innis v. The Steamer Senator (1851) 1 Cal. 459, 460-461; Griswold v. Sharpe (1852) 2 Cal. 17, 23-24; Richmond v. Sacramento Valley Railroad Company (1861) 18 Cal. 351, 356-358; Gay v. Winter (1867) 34 Cal. 153, 162-163; Needham v. S. F. & S. J. R. Co. (1869) 37 Cal. 409, 417-423.) Although criticized almost from the outset for the harshness of its operation, it has weathered numerous attacks, in both the legislative fn. 1 and the judicial fn. 2 arenas, seeking its amelioration or repudiation. We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the matter, giving particular attention to the common law and statutory sources of the subject doctrine in this state. As we have indicated, this reexamination leads us to the conclusion that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence can be and ought to be superseded by a rule which assesses liability in proportion to fault.
It is unnecessary for us to catalogue the enormous amount of critical comment that has been directed over the years against the "all-or-nothing" approach of the doctrine of contributory negligence. The essence of that criticism has been constant and clear: the doctrine is inequitable in its operation because it fails to distribute responsibility in proportion to fault. fn. 3 Against this have been raised several arguments in [13 Cal.3d 811] justification, but none have proved even remotely adequate to the task. fn. 4 The basic objection to the doctrine -- grounded in the primal concept that in a system in which liability is based on fault, the extent of fault should govern the extent of liability -- remains irresistible to reason and all intelligent notions of fairness.
It is in view of these theoretical and practical considerations that to this date 25 states, fn. 6 have abrogated the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence and have enacted in its place general apportionment statutes calculated in one manner or another to assess liability in proportion to fault. In 1973 these states were joined by Florida, which effected the same result by judicial decision. (Hoffman v. Jones (Fla. 1973) 280 So.2d 431.) We are likewise persuaded that logic, practical experience, and fundamental justice counsel against the retention of the [13 Cal.3d 813] doctrine rendering contributory negligence a complete bar to recovery -- and that it should be replaced in this state by a system under which liability for damage will be borne by those whose negligence caused it in direct proportion to their respective fault. fn. 6a.
The foregoing conclusion, however, clearly takes us only part of the way. It is strenuously and ably urged by defendants and two of the amici curiae that whatever our views on the relative merits of contributory and comparative negligence, we are precluded from making those views the law of the state by judicial decision. Moreover, it is contended, even if we are not so precluded, there exist considerations of a practical nature which should dissuade us from embarking upon the course which we have indicated. We proceed to take up these two objections in order.
It is urged that any change in the law of contributory negligence must be made by the Legislature, not by this court. Although the doctrine of contributory negligence is of judicial origin -- its genesis being traditionally attributed to the opinion of Lord Ellenborough in Butterfield v. Forrester (K.B. 1809) 103 Eng. Rep. 926 -- the enactment of section 1714 of the Civil Code fn. 7 in 1872 codified the doctrine as it stood at that date and, the argument continues, rendered it invulnerable to attack in the courts except on constitutional grounds. Subsequent cases of this court, it is pointed out, have unanimously affirmed that -- barring the appearance of some constitutional infirmity -- the "all-or-nothing" rule is the law of this state and shall remain so until the Legislature directs otherwise. The fundamental constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the argument concludes, requires judicial abstention.
We are further urged to observe that a basic distinction exists between the situation obtaining in Florida prior to the decision of that state's Supreme Court abrogating the doctrine (Hoffman v. Jones, supra, 280 So.2d 431), and the situation now confronting this court. There, to be sure, the Florida court was also faced with a statute, and the dissenting justice considered that fact sufficient to bar judicial change of the rule. The statute there in question, however, merely declared that the general [13 Cal.3d 814] English common and statute law in effect on July 4, 1776, was to be in force in Florida except to the extent it was inconsistent with federal constitutional and statutory law and acts of the state legislature. (Fla. Stat., § 2.01, F.S.A.) The majority simply concluded that there was no clear-cut common law rule of contributory negligence prior to the 1809 Butterfield decision (Butterfield v. Forrester, supra, 103 Eng. Rep. 926), and that therefore that rule was not made a part of Florida law by the statute. fn. 8 (280 So.2d at pp. 434-435.) In the instant case, defendants and the amici curiae who support them point out, the situation is quite different: here the Legislature has specifically enacted the rule of contributory negligence as the law of this state. In these circumstances, it is urged, the doctrine of separation of powers requires that any change must come from the Legislature.
We have concluded that the foregoing argument, in spite of its superficial appeal, is fundamentally misguided.  As we proceed to point out and elaborate below, it was not the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 1714 of the Civil Code, as well as other sections of that code declarative of the common law, to insulate the matters therein expressed from further judicial development; rather it was the intention of the Legislature to announce and formulate existing common law principles and definitions for purposes of orderly and concise presentation and with a distinct view toward continuing judicial evolution.
The portion of the note which is relevant to our inquiry extends from its beginning up to the series of three cases cited following the italicized sentence: "This section modifies the law heretofore existing." Plaintiff and her allies point out that the first authorities cited are two statutes from civil law jurisdictions, Louisiana and France; then comes the italicized sentence; finally there are cited three cases which state the common law of contributory negligence modified by the doctrine of last clear chance. The proper interpretation, they urge, is this: Civil law jurisdictions, they assert, uniformly apportion damages according to fault. The citation to statutes of such jurisdictions, followed by a sentence indicating that a change is intended, followed in turn by the citation of cases expressing the common law doctrine -- these taken together, it is urged, support the clear language of section 1714 by indicating the rejection of the common law "all-or-nothing" rule and the adoption in its place of civil law principles of apportionment.
This argument fails to withstand close scrutiny. The civil law statutes cited in the note, like the common law cases cited immediately following them, deal not with "defenses" to negligence but with the basic concept of negligence itself. fn. 11 In fact the Code Commissioners' Note to the parallel section of the Field draft cites the very same statutes and the very same cases in direct support of its statement of the basic rule. fn. 12 Moreover, in 1872, when section 1714 was enacted and the Code Commissioners' Note was written, neither France nor Louisiana applied concepts of comparative negligence. The notion of "faute commune" did not become firmly rooted in French law until 1879 and was not codified until 1915. (See Turk, Comparative Negligence on the March (1950) 28 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 189, 239-240.) Louisiana, in spite of an 1825 statute [13 Cal.3d 819] which appeared to establish comparative negligence, fn. 13 firmly adhered to the "all-or-nothing" common law rule in 1872 and has done so ever since. (See Schwartz, supra, § 1.3, p. 10, fn. 76; Turk, supra, at pp. 318-326.) In fact, in 1872 there was no American jurisdiction applying concepts of true comparative negligence for general purposes, fn. 14 and the only European jurisdictions doing so were Austria and Portugal. (Turk, supra, at p. 241.) Among those jurisdictions applying such concepts in the limited area in which they have traditionally been applied, to wit, admiralty, was California itself: in section 973 of the very Civil Code which we are now considering (now Harb. & Nav. Code, § 292) apportionment was provided for when the negligence of the plaintiff was slight. Yet the Code Commissioners' Note did not advert to this section.
We think that the foregoing establishes conclusively that the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 1714 of the Civil Code was to state the basic rule of negligence together with the defense of contributory negligence modified by the emerging doctrine of last clear chance. It remains to determine whether by so doing the Legislature intended to restrict the courts from further development of these concepts according to evolving standards of duty, causation, and liability.
This question must be answered in the negative. As we have explained above, the peculiar nature of the 1872 Civil Code as an avowed continuation of the common law has rendered it particularly flexible and adaptable in its response to changing circumstances and conditions. To reiterate the words of Professor Van Alstyne, "[the code's] incompleteness, both in scope and detail[,] have provided ample room for judicial [13 Cal.3d 822] development of important new systems of rules, frequently built upon Code foundations." (Van Alstyne, supra, at p. 36.) Section 1714 in particular has shown great adaptability in this respect. For example, the statute by its express language speaks of causation only in terms of actual cause or cause in fact ("Everyone is responsible ... for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care."), but this has not prevented active judicial development of the twin concepts of proximate causation and duty of care. (See, e.g., Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 158-167 [95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151]; Connor v. Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 850, 865-868 [73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609, 39 A.L.R.3d 224]; Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 739-748 [69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316]; Stewart v. Cox (1961) 55 Cal.2d 857, 861-863 [13 Cal.Rptr. 521, 362 P.2d 345]; Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 [320 P.2d 16, 65 A.L.R.2d 1358]; Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal.2d 60, 63-66 [271 P.2d 23].) Conversely, the presence of this statutory language has not hindered the development of rules which, in certain limited circumstances, permit a finding of liability in the absence of direct evidence establishing the defendant's negligence as the actual cause of damage. (See Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80 [199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91]; Ybarra v. Spangard (1944) 25 Cal.2d 486 [154 P.2d 687, 162 A.L.R. 1258].) By the same token we do not believe that the general language of section 1714 dealing with defensive considerations should be construed so as to stifle the orderly evolution of such considerations in light of emerging techniques and concepts.  On the contrary we conclude that the rule of liberal construction made applicable to the code by its own terms (Civ. Code, § 4, discussed ante) together with the code's peculiar character as a continuation of the common law (see Civ. Code, § 5, also discussed ante) permit if not require that section 1714 be interpreted so as to give dynamic expression to the fundamental precepts which it summarizes.
The resources of the common law at that time (in 1872) did not include techniques for the apportionment of damages strictly according to fault -- a fact which this court had lamented three years earlier (see fn. 17, ante). They did, however, include the nascent doctrine of last clear chance which, while it too was burdened by an "all-or-nothing" approach, at least to some extent avoided the often unconscionable results which could and did occur under the old rule precluding recovery when any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed in any degree to the harm suffered by him. Accordingly the Legislature sought to include the concept of last clear chance in its formulation of a rule of responsibility. We are convinced, however, as we have indicated, that in so doing the Legislature in no way intended to thwart future judicial progress toward the humane goal which it had embraced.  Therefore, and for all of the foregoing reasons, we hold that section 1714 of the Civil Code was not intended to and does not preclude present judicial action in furtherance of the purposes underlying it.
We are thus brought to the second group of arguments which have been advanced by defendants and the amici curiae supporting their position. Generally speaking, such arguments expose considerations of a practical nature which, it is urged, counsel against the adoption of a rule of comparative negligence in this state even if such adoption is possible by judicial means.
Our previous comments relating to the remaining two areas of concern (i.e., the status of the doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of risk, and the matter of judicial supervision of the finder of fact) have provided sufficient guidance to enable the trial courts of this state to meet and resolve particular problems in this area as they arise. As we have indicated, last clear chance and assumption of risk (insofar as the latter doctrine is but a variant of contributory negligence) are to be subsumed under the general process of assessing liability in proportion to fault, and the matter of jury supervision we leave for the moment within the broad discretion of the trial courts.
 For all of the foregoing reasons we conclude that the "all-or-nothing" rule of contributory negligence as it presently exists in this [13 Cal.3d 829] state should be and is herewith superseded by a system of "pure" comparative negligence, the fundamental purpose of which shall be to assign responsibility and liability for damage in direct proportion to the amount of negligence of each of the parties. Therefore, in all actions for negligence resulting in injury to person or property, the contributory negligence of the person injured in person or property shall not bar recovery, but the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. [7, 8] The doctrine of last clear chance is abolished, and the defense of assumption of risk is also abolished to the extent that it is merely a variant of the former doctrine of contributory negligence; both of these are to be subsumed under the general process of assessing liability in proportion to negligence. Pending future judicial or legislative developments, the trial courts of this state are to use broad discretion in seeking to assure that the principle stated is applied in the interest of justice and in furtherance of the purposes and objectives set forth in this opinion.
It remains for us to determine the extent to which the rule here announced shall have application to cases other than those which are commenced in the future.  It is the rule in this state that determinations of this nature turn upon considerations of fairness and public policy. (Westbrook v. Mihaly (1970) 2 Cal.3d 765, 800 [87 Cal.Rptr. 839, 471 P.2d 487]; Connor v. Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 850, 868 [73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609, 39 A.L.R.3d 224]; Forster Shipbldg. Co. v. County of L. A. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 450, 459 [6 Cal.Rptr. 24, 353 P.2d 736]; County of Los Angeles v. Faus (1957) 48 Cal.2d 672, 680-681 [312 P.2d 680].) Upon mature reflection, in view of the very substantial number of cases involving the matter here at issue which are now pending in the trial and appellate courts of this state, and with particular attention to considerations of reliance applicable to individual cases according to the stage of litigation which they have reached, we have concluded that a rule of limited retroactivity should obtain here. Accordingly we hold that the present opinion shall be applicable to all cases in which trial has not begun before the date this decision becomes final in this court, but that it shall not be applicable to any case in which trial began before that date (other than the instant case) -- except that if any judgment be reversed on appeal for other reasons, this opinion shall be applicable to any retrial.
In view of the foregoing disposition of this case we have not found it necessary to discuss plaintiff's additional contention that the rule of contributory negligence is in violation of state and federal constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.
Wright, C. J., Tobriner, J., and Burke, J., concurred.
Unfortunately the forthrightness of the majority opinion as a whole is sadly diminished by a curious reluctance to face up to reality by recognizing that this court is finally overruling Westbrook and several other cases on the subject of applying a new court-made rule to the parties at hand.
As recently as People v. Hitch (1974) 12 Cal.3d 641, 654 [117 Cal.Rptr. 9, 527 P.2d 361], the majority of this court, while upholding the appellant's contentions, denied him relief on a theory that prospectivity should prevail over retroactive application of a new rule. I pointed out in my dissent (id. at p. 655) that "there is a third, and preferable, alternative: applying the new rule to the aggrieved party responsible for bringing the issue to judicial attention, and thereafter prospectively."
Up to now the majority never deigned to consider the third alternative, but persisted in their erroneous notion that the only choice was between total retroactivity and absolute prospectivity. This occurred in two other cases last year: see my concurring opinion in In re Stewart (1974) 10 Cal.3d 902, 907 [112 Cal.Rptr. 520, 519 P.2d 568], and my dissenting opinion in In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 867 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561].
In retrospect it is clear that Westbrook v. Mihaly, supra, was the point of departure in which the majority first strayed from the accepted doctrine that a prevailing party is to be awarded the fruits of his victory. In my concurring and dissenting opinion in that case (2 Cal.3d at p. 802) and in Hitch (12 Cal.3d at p. 656) I quoted from Stovall v. Denno (1967) 388 U.S. 293 [18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 87 S.Ct. 1967], to the effect that the benefits of a new rule should apply to the parties to the proceeding which results in the new rule. In the instant case, the majority now quote that same portion of Stovall, this time with approval (ante, p. 830).
Also, in Westbrook v. Mihaly (2 Cal.3d at p. 804) I noted that if a new rule is to apply prospectively only, "it will tend to deter counsel from [13 Cal.3d 832] presenting 'issues involving renovation of unsound or outmoded legal doctrines,'" citing Mishkin's foreword to the article on the 1964 term of the Supreme Court in 79 Harvard Law Review 56. The majority now adopt the same point based upon the same quotation (ante, p. 830).
The majority paint their conclusion herein with such broad-brush and standardless terms as "considerations of fairness and public policy" and "sound principles of decision-making," without giving any clue why application of a new rule is fair to Nga Li, but somehow was unfair as applied over the past several years to Westbrook and to the several other litigants who helped us develop new rules of law only to be deprived of the benefits thereof. The most inexplicable previous result was Larez v. Shannon (1970) 2 Cal.3d 813 [87 Cal.Rptr. 871, 471 P.2d 519], in which, it will be remembered, the plaintiffs prevailed completely on principle, but the majority went so far as to reverse a judgment in their favor.
Nevertheless it is comforting that the majority of the court have finally settled on the third of the three available alternatives in applying a new court-made rule. Despite the majority's gratuitous disclaimer, the bench and bar will understand that this court is now overruling, insofar as they are inconsistent, the following opinions: Westbrook v. Mihaly, supra, 2 Cal.3d 765; Alhambra City Sch. Dist. v. Mize (1970) 2 Cal.3d 806 [87 Cal.Rptr. 867, 471 P.2d 515]; Larez v. Shannon, supra, 2 Cal.3d 813, Foytik v. Aronson (1970) 2 Cal.3d 818 [87 Cal.Rptr. 873, 471 P.2d 521]; In re Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d 857; People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d 641.
For over a century this court has consistently and unanimously held that Civil Code section 1714 codifies the defense of contributory negligence. Suddenly -- after 103 years -- the court declares section 1714 shall provide for comparative negligence instead. In my view, this action constitutes a gross departure from established judicial rules and role.
First, the majority's decision deviates from settled rules of statutory construction. A cardinal rule of construction is to effect the intent of the Legislature. fn. 1 The majority concedes "the intention of the Legislature in [13 Cal.3d 833] enacting section 1714 of the Civil Code was to state the basic rule of negligence together with the defense of contributory negligence modified by the emerging doctrine of last clear chance." (Ante, p. 821.) Yet the majority refuses to honor this acknowledged intention -- violating established principle.
The majority decision also departs significantly from the recognized limitation upon judicial action -- encroaching on the powers constitutionally entrusted to the Legislature. The power to enact and amend our statutes is vested exclusively in the Legislature. (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3; art. IV, § 1.) "This court may not usurp the legislative function to change the statutory law which has been uniformly construed by a long line of judicial decisions." (Estate of Calhoun (1955) 44 Cal.2d 378, 387 [282 P.2d 880].) The majority's altering the meaning of section 1714, notwithstanding the original intent of the framers and the century-old judicial interpretation of the statute, represents no less than amendment by judicial fiat. Although the Legislature intended the courts to develop the working details of the defense of contributory negligence enacted in section 1714 (see generally, Commentary, Arvo Van Alstyne, The California Civil Code, 6 West Civ. Code (1954) pp. 1-43), no basis exists -- either in history or in logic -- to conclude the Legislature intended to authorize judicial repudiation of the basic defense itself at any point we might decide the doctrine no longer serves us.
I dispute the need for judicial -- instead of legislative -- action in this area. The majority is clearly correct in its observation that our society has changed significantly during the 103-year existence of section 1714. But this social change has been neither recent nor traumatic, and the criticisms leveled by the majority at the present operation of contributory negligence are not new. I cannot conclude our society's evolution has now rendered the normal legislative process inadequate.
By abolishing this century old doctrine today, the majority seriously erodes our constitutional function. We are again guilty of judicial chauvinism.
­FN 2. See Tucker v. United Railroads (1916) 171 Cal. 702, 704-705 [154 P. 835]; Sego v. Southern Pacific Co. (1902) 137 Cal. 405, 407 [70 P. 279]; Summers v. Burdick (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 464, 471 [13 Cal.Rptr. 68]; Haerdter v. Johnson (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 547, 553 [207 P.2d 855].
To be distinguished from arguments raised in justification of the "all or nothing" rule are practical considerations which have been said to counsel against the adoption of a fairer and more logical alternative. The latter considerations will be discussed in a subsequent portion of this opinion.
In the federal sphere, comparative negligence of the "pure" type (see infra) has been the rule since 1908 in cases arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (see 45 U.S.C. § 53) and since 1920 in cases arising under the Jones Act (see 46 U.S.C. § 688) and the Death on the High Seas Act (see 46 U.S.C. § 766).
­FN 6a In employing the generic term "fault" throughout this opinion we follow a usage common to the literature on the subject of comparative negligence. In all cases, however, we intend the term to import nothing more than "negligence" in the accepted legal sense.
­FN 9. This impression is strengthened by a comparison of the language of section 1714 with the section of the Field draft on which it was modeled. Section 853 of the 1865 draft of the New York Civil Code, whose manifest intention was to state the strict rule of contributory negligence, uses the word "unless" in the position wherein its successor section 1714 substitutes "except so far as." (See fn. 12, infra.) As we shall explain, however, wisdom does not lie in drawing hasty conclusions from this change in language.
In 1872, article 2295 of the Louisiana Civil Code (now art. 2316) provided: "Every person is responsible for the damage he occasions not merely by his act, but by his negligence, his imprudence, or his want of skill."
­FN 12. Section 853 of the 1865 Field draft of the New York Civil Code, along with its Code Commissioners' Note, provided: "Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person; 1 unless the latter has, willfully, or by want or ordinary care, incurred the risk of such injury.2 The extent of liability in such cases is defined by the Title on COMPENSATORY RELIEF.
"1. Code La., 2295; Code Napoleon, 1383; Austin v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 25 N. Y., 334; Jones v. Bird, 5 B. & Ald., 837; Dodd v. Holmes, 1 Ad. & El., 493.
"2. Johnson v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 20 N.Y., 69."
­FN 15. The statement in some cases to the effect that section 1714 states a civil law rather than a common law principle (see Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496]; Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc. (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 91, 95-96 [219 P.2d 73]) is correct insofar as it indicates that the duty to refrain from injuring others through negligence has its roots in civil law concepts. (See Turk, supra, at p. 209.) It is incorrect, however, insofar as it might be read to indicate that defenses affecting recovery for breach of that basic duty are also rooted in the civil law. As we have shown, the defense of contributory negligence and its mitigative corollary, the doctrine of last clear chance, as they are stated in the statute, are clearly of common law origin.
­FN 17. It is difficult to understand why the Code Commissioners did not incorporate in their note citations to California cases dealing with the plaintiff's duty of care and the doctrine of last clear chance. Perhaps it was felt that a citation of the seminal English cases was sufficient to recognize the emerging principles. In any event, it is worthy of note that this court, in the 1869 decision of Needham v. S. F. & S. J. R. Co. (1869) 37 Cal. 409, had carefully examined the New York rule and had firmly rejected it in favor of the more humane English view. Of more than passing interest in the present premises is the following language from our opinion: "To this doctrine [the strict New York rule], however, notwithstanding the very respectable authority by which it is sustained, we are unable to assent. About the general rule upon which it is founded -- that a plaintiff cannot recover for the negligence of the defendant, if his own want of care or negligence has in any degree contributed to the result complained of -- there can be no dispute. (Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153.) The reason of this rule is, that both parties being at fault, there can be no apportionment of the damages, and not that the negligence of the plaintiff justifies or excuses the negligence of the defendant, which would seem to be the true reason in the estimation of the New York Courts. The law does not justify or excuse the negligence of the defendant. It would, notwithstanding the negligence of the plaintiff, hold the defendant responsible, if it could. It merely allows him to escape judgment because, from the nature of the case, it is unable to ascertain what share of the damages is due to his negligence. He is both legally and morally to blame, but there is no standard by which the law can measure the consequences of his fault, and therefore, and therefore only, he is allowed to go free of judgment. The impossibility of ascertaining in what degree his negligence contributed to the injury being then the sole ground of his exemption from liability, it follows that such exemption cannot be allowed where such impossibility does not exist; or, in other words, the general rule that a plaintiff who is himself at fault cannot recover, is limited by the reason upon which it is founded." (37 Cal. 409, 419; italics added.) This language clearly contains the germ of a comparative approach, if not the outright statement that such an approach would be adopted if apportionment of damages were technically possible.
­FN 18. It has been argued by one of the amici curiae that the mandatory use of special verdicts in negligence cases would require amendment of section 625 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reposes the matter of special findings within the sound discretion of the trial court. (See Cembrook v. Sterling Drug Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 52, 62-65 [41 Cal.Rptr. 492].) This, however, poses no problem at this time. For the present we impose no mandatory requirement that special verdicts be used but leave the entire matter of jury supervision within the sound discretion of the trial courts.
­FN 19. BAJI No. 3.52 (1971 re-revision) currently provides: "Contributory negligence of a plaintiff is not a bar to his recovery for an injury caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of a defendant. [¶] Wilful or wanton misconduct is intentional wrongful conduct, done either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury to another will probably result, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results. An intent to injure is not a necessary element of wilful or wanton misconduct. [¶] To prove such misconduct it is not necessary to establish that defendant himself recognized his conduct as dangerous. It is sufficient if it be established that a reasonable man under the same or similar circumstances would be aware of the dangerous character of such conduct."
­FN 23. Indeed, as we have indicated in the preceding paragraph, such considerations have led us to permit application of the new rule to actions which have been commenced but have not yet been brought to trial.
­FN 24. Nothing we say here today on this point is intended to overrule, in whole or in part, expressly or by implication, the case of Westbrook v. Mihaly, supra, 2 Cal.3d 765, or any other case involving the prospective or retrospective operation of our decisions.
­FN 1. Tyrone v. Kelley (1973) 9 Cal.3d 1, 10-11 [106 Cal.Rptr. 761, 507 P.2d 65]; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 256 [104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 502 P.2d 1049]; Mannheim v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 678, 686 [91 Cal.Rptr. 585, 478 P.2d 17]; Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 359, 366 [90 Cal.Rptr. 592, 475 P.2d 864]; Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1969) 71 Cal.2d 907, 918 [80 Cal.Rptr. 89, 458 P.2d 33].
­FN 3. See, e.g., Codling v. Paglia (1973) 32 N.Y.2d 330, 344-345 [345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622]; McGraw v. Corrin (Del. 1973) 303 A.2d 641, 644; Bridges v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (1971) 26 Utah 2d 281 [488 P.2d 738]; Parsonson v. Construction Equipment Company (1971) 386 Mich. 61 [191 N.W.2d 465] (concurring opinion); Krise v. Gillund (N.Dak. 1971) 184 N.W.2d 405; Peterson v. Culp (1970) 255 Ore. 269 [465 P.2d 876]; Vincent v. Pabst Brewing Co. (1970) 47 Wis.2d 120 [177 N.W.2d 513]; Maki v. Frelk (1968) 40 Ill.2d 193 [239 N.E.2d 445, 32 A.L.R.3d 452]; compare Hoffman v. Jones (Fla. 1973) 280 So.2d 431.
SCOCAL, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. , 13 Cal.3d 804 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/li-v-yellow-cab-co-27850) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 § 1
 § 292
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 53
 § 688
 § 766
 art. 2316
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.