Monroe v. East Bay Rental Service

California Court of Appeal Jun 11, 1952 No. Civ. 14769Published

Before: Goodell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a lessor of a chattel may be held liable for negligence under Civil Code section 1714 for failing to warn a hirer of the dangerous nature of equipment, and that this duty exists independently of the obligations defined in Civil Code section 1955.

Issues

Whether Civil Code section 1955 provides the exclusive obligations for a lessor of personal property, thereby precluding a negligence claim under Civil Code section 1714.
Whether a complaint alleging that a lessor negligently entrusted a dangerous instrumentality to an unskilled user without warning states a valid cause of action.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No possible conflict can be found between sections 1714 and 1955, each of which defines different obligations of an owner of property.”

“The basis of the liability is the superior knowledge possessed by the owner, of the dangerous character of the leased chattel.”

GOODELL, J.

Appellant sued for $5,518, damages for bodily injuries.

A general and special demurrer to the first amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend, but after notice the plaintiff declined to amend and judgment was entered that he take nothing and that defendants should recover their costs. Plaintiff then appealed.

Defendants operate a business wherein they rent and lease to the public mechanical equipment including Roto-Tillers. A Roto-Tiller is a plow equipped with a gasoline-driven motor. The theory on which the action was brought, as indicated by the complaint, is that the Roto-Tiller which plaintiff hired from defendants was a dangerous instrumentality; that defendants had full knowledge of its inherent dangers and plaintiff had no knowledge of them; that it was delivered to him without inquiry by defendants as to how much or how little he knew of its functioning and hence its hazards, and that they did not instruct or warn Mm on the subject. The complaint alleged that while in operation the Roto-Tiller got out of control, raised from the ground, and fell on plaintiff.

Respondents rely on section 1955, Civil Code, which reads:

“One who lets personal property must deliver it to the hirer, secure his quiet enjoyment thereof against all lawful claimants, put it into a condition fit for the purpose for which he lets it, and repair all deteriorations thereof not occasioned by the fault of the hirer and not the natural result of its use.”

Their contention is that this section by its definition of the “Obligations of letter of personal property” excludes every other possible obligation or duty, under the familiar rule

expressio imius est exclusio alterius.

Appellant answers this argument by citing the Restatement of the Law of Torts, volume 2, section 407, which deals with the tort liability of the lessor of a dangerous chattel. It is not necessary to in

[576]

voke the Restatement since the statute law of this state covers the subject.

Section 1714 Civil Code, which is simply a definition of negligence

Monroe v. East Bay Rental Service

AI Brief

GOODELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief