## Facts

- Jennifer Lynn Myrick and Marilyn Frost‑Zafuto worked in a clothing store in the Acorn Building, a 111‑year‑old unreinforced masonry building in downtown Paso Robles.
- During the December 22, 2003 San Simeon earthquake, the two employees fled outside but were killed when a portion of the building collapsed.
- The City of Paso Robles identified the Acorn Building as a potentially hazardous unreinforced masonry structure and notified the owners in December 1989.
- In 1992, the city enacted an ordinance requiring seismic retrofitting of hazardous unreinforced masonry buildings, with a final compliance deadline of 2018 for the Acorn Building.
- The owners had not retrofitted the building by the time of the 2003 earthquake.
- The decedents’ heirs sued the building owners for wrongful death based on negligence in failing to retrofit and maintain the building.
- A jury found the owners negligent and found they were engaged in a joint venture regarding ownership and maintenance of the building; the trial court entered judgment imposing joint and several liability for economic and noneconomic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal ordinance setting a future deadline to retrofit hazardous unreinforced masonry buildings eliminates or limits an owner’s common-law duty of reasonable care for injuries occurring before the deadline.
2. Whether Civil Code sections 1431.1 and 1431.2 (Proposition 51) require several-only liability for noneconomic damages among joint venturers, or whether joint venturers remain jointly and severally liable for noneconomic damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the ordinance’s future retrofit deadline did not insulate the owners from negligence liability for deaths occurring before the compliance date.
- The court held Proposition 51’s several-only rule for noneconomic damages did not apply to defendants found to be joint venturers; joint venturers were jointly and severally liable for noneconomic damages.

## Legal Principles

- A local safety ordinance that sets a compliance deadline establishes a minimum regulatory requirement and does not displace or cap the common-law duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances.
- The existence of an unexpired statutory or ordinance deadline does not, by itself, establish due care or bar a finding of negligence where reasonable prudence could require earlier action.
- Foreseeability and prior notice of a known hazard may support negligence liability for failure to mitigate risks, even when regulatory compliance is not yet due.
- Joint venturers are mutual agents within the scope of the venture and are jointly and severally liable for torts committed in furtherance of the joint enterprise.
- Civil Code section 1431.2’s several-only allocation of noneconomic damages applies to separate tortfeasors under comparative fault principles and does not abrogate joint-venture joint-and-several liability for noneconomic damages.

## Conclusion

The court upheld wrongful-death liability against owners of a hazardous unreinforced masonry building despite an ordinance allowing retrofitting by a later date, and it ruled that owners found to be joint venturers remained jointly and severally liable for noneconomic damages notwithstanding Proposition 51.


Myrick v. Mastagni, 185 Cal. App. 4th 1082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)