## Facts

- A transit company operated a street railway system and maintained wooden poles adjacent to the curb on a heavily traveled boulevard.
- A pedestrian was standing on the sidewalk near one such pole.
- A car, allegedly negligently driven by Paul Garcia, struck the pole; the pole broke near its base and fell onto the pedestrian, causing severe injuries.
- The pedestrian alleged the pole was rotten and structurally weakened by rot or termites, that the condition had existed for a long time, and that the transit company knew or should have known of the condition through reasonable inspection and care.
- The pedestrian alleged the boulevard carried heavy daily traffic and that the transit company should have anticipated that vehicles might leave the roadway, strike the pole, and cause it to fall onto sidewalk pedestrians.
- The pedestrian obtained an unsatisfied default judgment against the driver and another Garcia defendant, and pursued claims against the transit company.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint states a negligence claim against a company that maintained a weakened pole near a busy road when a negligent driver strikes the pole and it falls on a pedestrian.
2. Whether the driver’s negligent collision is a superseding cause as a matter of law, or whether the company’s negligent maintenance and the driver’s negligence may be concurrent proximate causes.
3. Whether foreseeability and proximate cause could be resolved against the plaintiff on a general demurrer.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for the transit company.
- The court held the complaint adequately pleaded negligence and causation against the transit company.
- The court held the driver’s negligence was not a superseding cause as a matter of law; it could be found a concurring proximate cause with the transit company’s alleged negligence.
- The court ruled that foreseeability and proximate cause were fact questions inappropriate for resolution on demurrer under the pleaded circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- An entity maintaining fixtures adjacent to a public way must exercise ordinary care to keep them in a safe condition and to avoid exposing passersby to unreasonable risk of harm.
- The scope of duty and proximate cause turns on foreseeability as viewed by a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances, including conditions along a busy roadway.
- An intervening act by a third person, including negligent conduct, does not break causation when that type of intervention is among the hazards that made the defendant’s conduct negligent.
- When a weakened roadside structure creates a risk that foreseeable traffic mishaps will cause it to fall and injure pedestrians, the structure owner’s negligence and a driver’s negligence may operate as concurrent proximate causes.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the pedestrian to proceed against the transit company because a jury could find that maintaining a rotten pole beside a heavily traveled street created a foreseeable risk that a vehicle would strike it and cause injury, making the driver’s negligence potentially concurrent rather than superseding.


Gibson v. Garcia, 96 Cal. App. 2d 681 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)