## Facts

- Calvin Mark and three roommates rented an apartment in San Francisco; a streetlight next to their bedroom window was so bright it disrupted sleep and allowed reading with room lights off.
- The tenants repeatedly complained to their landlords, who contacted the utility and the City; the City directed the utility to inspect the light.
- A utility inspector and later the landlord attempted to reduce glare by partially blackening the streetlight’s plastic globe, without measurable effect.
- The bulb was reachable from the apartment window, resembled an ordinary household bulb, and bore no warning indicating a high-voltage system.
- The roommates repeatedly unscrewed the bulb to turn off the light; each time, the utility was called and replaced the bulb, giving the utility notice of recurring tampering.
- After another replacement, Mark attempted to remove the bulb again while wearing ski gloves; he contacted an uninsulated energized wire inside the fixture, was electrocuted, and died.
- No warning signs or physical barriers (such as a locked canopy) prevented access to energized components.
- Mark’s family sued the utility, the City, and the landlords for wrongful death based on negligence theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, was sufficient to permit a jury to find the utility negligent and a cause of Mark’s death, making nonsuit improper.
2. Whether the City or the landlords owed and breached a duty regarding the streetlight’s condition, making nonsuit improper as to them.
3. Whether Mark was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, justifying nonsuit.

## Decision

- The court reversed the nonsuit as to the utility and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court affirmed the nonsuit in favor of the City and the landlords.
- The court held contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law and should be decided by the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Nonsuit is proper only when, taking plaintiff’s evidence as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, there is no evidence supporting a verdict for plaintiff.
- An operator of high-voltage equipment must use reasonable care commensurate with the danger, including providing warnings or physical safeguards when it knows or should know people are likely to come into contact with the equipment.
- Foreseeability may be shown by actual notice of repeated public tampering; failure to take relatively simple precautions can support a finding of breach and causation.
- Contributory negligence is ordinarily a jury question; it may be decided as a matter of law only when the evidence permits a single reasonable inference, including as to the plaintiff’s knowledge of the risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of the utility’s notice of repeated tampering with an accessible high-voltage streetlight could support a jury finding that reasonable care required warnings or protective measures, while the City and landlords lacked sufficient control or notice for liability; Mark’s contributory negligence remained a fact question for the jury.


Mark v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 7 Cal. 3d 170, 496 P.2d 1276 (Cal. 1972)