Court Opinion

ID: 9533327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:30:35.682728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:01.003751
License: Public Domain

S CHATTER, J.,
Dissenting.
It is my view that inasmuch as the city was held liable to the injured pedestrian, Mrs. Wagner, because of its own failure to perform obligations owed directly to her, no recovery over should be permitted in the city’s favor as against the abutting property owner. This conclusion is emphasized by the further fact that Mrs. Wagner would not have sustained her injury if the city had not neglected to perform the duty it owed to her. As hereinafter *139shown the majority ruling creates a new right and enforces it retroactively.
By adoption of the Public Liability Act in 1923 (now Gov. Code, § 53051) the Legislature imposed upon municipalities liability to persons injured from the dangerous or defective condition of streets and sidewalks “if the legislative body, board, or person authorized to remedy the condition: (a) Had knowledge or notice of the defective or dangerous condition, (b) For a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge or receiving notice, failed to remedy the condition ...” (Gov. Code, § 53051; see also Fackrell v. City of San Diego (1945), 26 Cal.2d 196, 203, 208 [9] [157 P.2d 625, 158 A.L.R. 773] ; Ackers v. City of Los Angeles (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 50, 53 [104 P.2d 399]; Jones v. City of South San Francisco (1950), 96 Cal.App.2d 427, 430-433 [216 P.2d 25].) The Streets and Highways Code provides in section 5610 that “The owners of lots . . . fronting on any portion of a public street . . . when that street ... is improved . . ., shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons ...” The same code in section 5611 directs that “When any portion of the sidewalk is out of repair . . . and in condition to endanger persons ... in the use of such sidewalk, the superintendent of streets shall notify the owner or person in possession of the property fronting on that portion of such sidewalk so out of repair, to repair the sidewalk,” and (§5615) “If the repair is not commenced and prosecuted to completion with due diligence, as required by the notice, the superintendent of streets shall forthwith repair the sidewalk.” (See also, Sexton v. Brooks (1952), 39 Cal. 2d 153, 157-158 [245 P.2d 496] ; Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945), 25 Cal.2d 806, 809-812 [155 P.2d 633] ; Schaefer v. Lenahan (1944), 63 Cal.App.2d 324, 326-327 [146 P.2d 929]; Barton v. Capitol Market (1943), 57 Cal.App.2d 516, 517-518 [1] [134 P.2d 847].) It follows that by the judgment entered in favor of the pedestrian, Mrs. Wagner, and against the city it became established as a matter of law that the city had knowledge or notice of the dangerous and defective sidewalk condition and permitted such condition to continue to exist beyond a reasonable time and until she was injured thereby. (See Arellano v. City of Burbank (1939), 13 Cal. 2d 248, 254 [1] [89 P.2d 113].)
This court has specifically declared that “The duty of the landowner i,s to use due care not to create or maintain a dangerous condition for the benefit of his property, while *140that of the city is to use due care to discover and remove defective conditions. [Citations.] Thus, the liability of each type of defendant is based upon his individual wrongful act or omission, and it is possible to have a valid verdict, exonerating one and holding the other. [Citations.] ...” (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco (1953), 41 Cal.2d 419, 428-429 [14] [260 P.2d 55].
In the Peters case the city argued that the judgment against it should be reversed because there was no judgment against the landowner, but we there stated that “We do not agree. The city is under a duty to keep sidewalks in safe condition, it is directly liable to pedestrians for failing to correct a dangerous condition of which it had notice, and it is not relieved of its responsibility in this regard merely because the condition was created or maintained by a property owner who might also be liable to pedestrians for injuries resulting therefrom. [Citations.] With regard to persons who are injured by such a condition, the city and the landowner are joint or'concurrent tort feasors; each is directly liable for his own wrong and each may be held liable for the entire damage suffered. [Citations.] ” (Peters v. City & County of San Francisco (1953), supra, 41 Cal.2d 419, 429 [14, 15, 16] ; see also, Douglass v. City of Los Angeles (1935), 5 Cal. 2d 123, 128 [2] [53 P.2d 353] ; Bosqui v. City of San Bernardino (1935), 2 Cal.2d 747, 764 [9] [43 P.2d 547] ; Marsh v. City of Sacramento (1954), 127 Cal.App.2d 721, 723-725 [1] [274 P-.2d 434] ; Wilkes v. City & County of San Francisco (1941), 44 Cal.App.2d 393, 397 [5] [112 P.2d 759] ; Mulder v. City of Los Angeles (1930), 110 Cal.App. 663, 668 [294 P. 485].) Thus, it is not for any act or neglect of the property owner that the city is liable; it is liable, if at all, not on and such theory as that of respondeat superior, but rather, solely for the breach of its own duty. And, perhaps more important, it must be recognized that the acts of both original defendants (the property owners and the city) were necessary to produce the injury to the pedestrian, Mrs. Wagner. If either the property. owner or the city had discharged the duty respectively imposed on them the accident would not have happened.
Under these circumstances it appears to me that to require the landowner not merely to answer for his own negligence but also to indemnify the city for its independent tort will tend to defeat the Legislature’s purpose in making the city liable for its own negligence in failing to vigilantly inspect *141and diligently maintain, or require owners of abutting property to maintain, sidewalks in a safe condition. If such a right is created and enforced by this court, a most natural result will be encouragement of laxity on the part of the city in carrying out its obligation of inspection, discovery of patent defects, and proper maintenance of sidewalks for the safety of the public. The proposal of the city that it should be indemnified by the property owner for what it terms its own “passive” negligence in permitting a dangerous condition to continue should be promptly and positively rejected.
This matter obviously presents no such case as San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. v. California Bldg. etc. Co. (1958), 162 Cal.App.2d 434, 443 [5] [328 P.2d 785], wherein the court expressly recognized the rule that there is no right of contribution among joint tort feasors but properly held that in the circumstances of that ease the rule was inapplicable because of the contractual relations of the parties. ‘ ‘ The contract . . . provided that the [defendant] . . . ‘is held responsible for payment of any and all damages’ resulting from its operations. [Italics added.] Even if this did not amount to an express contract to indemnify the school district for damages caused to it by a breach of the contract by the [defendant] . . ., such a warranty or agreement to indemnify would necessarily be implied. Whether the school district [plaintiff] should be precluded from recovery by reason of its conduct, that is, whether the conduct of the district helped to bring about the damage, is at least a question of fact and should have been left to the jury. Under such circumstances it was error to grant a nonsuit.” (Pp. 448-449 of 162 Cal. App.2d.)
The case before us not only does not show any agreement by the property owners to indemnify the city for the breach of its duty but makes clear, as a matter of law, the fact that “the conduct of the [city] helped to bring about the damage.” The ease at bar, therefore, is fundamentally indistinguishable from, and should be governed by, Dow v. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. (1912), 162 Cal. 136, 138-140 [121 P. 379], and cases there cited. (See also 23 So.Cal.L.Rev. 413.) In this case, as in Dow, the independent negligence of both tort feasors was necessary to cause the pedestrian’s injury. Prom the fact that the judgment in the basic personal injury action was entered in favor of the plaintiff therein and has become final as against both the city and the property owners, it follows *142as a matter of law (implicit in the determination adverse to the respective defendants in such basic action) that the subject injury would not have occurred if either (a) the property owner had not created the condition or (b) the city had not permitted the condition to continue after it had notice and was bound to correct it. Thus the right of the city to claim indemnification for the consequences ensuing from its own tort is a new right of recovery, not heretofore known to the law of this state, and it is enforced retroactively by the same decision which creates it. Such rulings should not find favor with the court.
I would affirm the judgment denying recovery to the city.
McComb, J., concurred.