## Facts

- Charles Bigbee used a public telephone booth in a liquor-store parking lot on Century Boulevard in Inglewood, California, around 12:20 a.m. on November 2, 1974.
- An intoxicated driver, Leona North Roberts, lost control of her car, left the roadway, entered the parking lot, and struck the telephone booth, severely injuring Bigbee.
- Bigbee alleged he saw the car approaching and tried to escape, but the booth door jammed and trapped him; he claimed he could have avoided injury if the door had operated freely.
- Bigbee alleged the booth was negligently located too close to Century Boulevard, where traffic allegedly habitually exceeded the speed limit, creating an unreasonable risk to booth users.
- There was evidence of a prior similar incident in which a vehicle struck the same general area and damaged another booth at that location.
- Bigbee sued the booth-related defendants (including the booth owner and related entities) for negligence and strict liability theories tied to placement and booth condition.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, the risk that a motorist might leave the roadway and strike the booth was so unforeseeable that defendants owed no duty or could not be negligent as a matter of law.
2. Whether proximate cause could be decided as a matter of law where a third party’s negligent driving caused the impact, but plaintiff alleged the booth’s placement and a jammed door were substantial factors in producing the injury.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for the telephone-booth defendants and remanded.
- The court held reasonable jurors could differ on whether the risk of an errant vehicle striking the booth was foreseeable given its proximity to a busy street, alleged speeding conditions, and evidence of a prior similar accident.
- The court held causation also presented triable issues because a jury could find the booth’s placement and the alleged door malfunction were substantial factors in the harm, even though the driver’s negligence was an intervening act.

## Legal Principles

- Intervening negligence by a third party does not automatically relieve a defendant of liability; the question is whether the third party’s conduct was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the defendant.
- Foreseeability in negligence is ordinarily a fact question; summary judgment is proper only when no reasonable jury could find the harm foreseeable on the evidentiary record.
- A defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of injury; liability may attach if the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
- Evidence of prior similar accidents may support foreseeability and notice of a dangerous condition.

## Conclusion

The court held that, on the evidence presented, a jury could reasonably find that placing a telephone booth near a heavily traveled roadway and maintaining it with a door that could trap a user created a foreseeable risk of injury from an out-of-control vehicle, making summary judgment on foreseeability and proximate cause improper.


Bigbee v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 34 Cal. 3d 49 (1983)