## Facts

- Kathleen Maloney stopped her car in a left-turn lane while waiting for a traffic light.
- Ramona M. Rath turned into the same lane behind Maloney; Rath’s brakes failed and her vehicle rear-ended Maloney’s car.
- Rath had no prior warning or knowledge of any brake defect; the failure resulted from a hydraulic hose rupture that gave no warning before failing.
- About three months earlier, Rath had the brakes completely overhauled by a service station mechanic.
- About two weeks before the accident, following another collision, Rath’s husband had the mechanic inspect and repair the vehicle, but no brake work was done.
- Expert testimony attributed the brake failure to a hole in a hydraulic hose caused by rubbing against the right front wheel; the rubbing resulted from faulty hose installation during the overhaul.
- A competent inspection could have detected the improper installation and evidence of rubbing before failure.
- California Vehicle Code required vehicles to be equipped with adequate brakes and required brakes and components to be maintained in good working order.

## Issues

1. Whether a vehicle owner who acted with reasonable personal care may be held liable for brake failure caused by an independent contractor mechanic’s negligent repair.
2. Whether statutory duties to equip and maintain adequate brakes are nondelegable, making the owner responsible for the contractor’s negligence.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Rath.
- The court held that Rath rebutted any presumption of negligence as to her personal conduct because she reasonably relied on professional brake service and had no warning of impending failure.
- The court nonetheless held Rath liable because the statutory duty to maintain adequate brakes is nondelegable and cannot be avoided by hiring an independent contractor.
- The court concluded Maloney was entitled to judgment on liability, with further proceedings required on damages.

## Legal Principles

- Violation of statutory brake requirements gives rise to a presumption of negligence that may be rebutted by showing reasonable efforts to comply.
- When safety statutes impose duties designed to protect the public, those duties may be nondelegable; the obligated party remains liable for negligent performance by an independent contractor.
- A vehicle owner’s statutory duty to provide and maintain adequate brakes is nondelegable; the owner is liable to third parties injured by brake failure attributable to negligent repair or maintenance.
- Policy supports nondelegability where defective performance creates a grave risk of bodily harm, the owner selects the contractor, and the owner may seek indemnity from the negligent contractor.

## Conclusion

The court held that California’s statutory requirements for adequate and well-maintained brakes impose a nondelegable duty on vehicle owners, making an owner liable for injuries caused by an independent mechanic’s negligent brake work even when the owner exercised reasonable personal care.


Maloney v. Rath, 69 Cal. 2d 442 (Cal. 1968)