Richards v. Stanley - 43 Cal. 2d 60, 271 P.2d 23 (1954)

Rule:

Ordinarily, in the absence of a special relationship between the parties, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent him from causing harm to another. Moreover, this rule is applicable even in cases in which the third person's conduct is made possible only because the defendant has relinquished control of his property to the third person, at least if the defendant has no reason to believe that the third person is incompetent to manage it.

Facts:

Plaintiff brought the present action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered when his motorcycle collided with an automobile owned by defendant spouses Stanley, which was being driven at the time by a thief, defendant Rawlings. The complaint alleged that the defendant wife left the car unlocked with the ignition key in the car lock in violation of San Francisco, Cal., Municipal Code § 69. The trial court excluded the aforesaid ordinance from evidence. Plaintiff then sought leave to amend his complaint to state a cause of action for general negligence, but leave to amend was denied. The court then sustained the defendants’ objection to the introduction of any evidence against them on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and granted their motion for a nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that, although the ordinance provided that it shall not be admissible in evidence or have any other bearing in any civil action, it may nevertheless be relied upon as a basis for liability. 

Issue:

1. Could the ordinance be relied upon as a basis for defendants’ liability? 
2. Could the defendants be held liable under the general theory of negligence? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, noting that a person may not recover damages based upon the violation of a criminal statute or ordinance unless he was one of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute or ordinance was enacted. In this case, the court held that the ordinance was clearly not enacted for the benefit of persons who might be injured by the operation of stolen cars. The court further held that the defendant wife did not owe a duty to protect the motorcyclist from the negligent driving of a thief. According to the court, a car owner was under no duty to persons who could be injured by its use to keep it out of the hands of a third person in the absence of facts putting the owner on notice that the third person was incompetent to handle it. Further, in the absence of a special relationship between the parties, there was no duty to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent him from causing harm to another.