TO: GinaL.Genova,SeniorPartner
FROM: FarahAbdulkhadar,JuniorAssociate
SUBJECT: PeterPlaintiffv.TommyTrusting
DATE: November17,2024
CC: LitigationTeam
STATEMENTOFASSIGNMENT
MyassignmentistoresearchCaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(d)inordertowritealegal memorandum.IwillanalyzethefactsofTommyTrustingv.PeterPlaintiffasitappliestothe aforementionedcode,includinganyanticipatedcounterpointsbytheopposingcounsel.
ISSUE&BRIEFANSWER
I. WillTommybeheldliableunderaCaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(d)claimforbeinga proximatecauseofPeter’sinjuriesbyallegedlyfurnishingalcoholknowinglytoJack?
NO:WhileTommyadmittedlypurchasedthealcoholicbeveragesthatwereservedtohisparty invitees,hedidnotknowinglyfurnishalcoholicbeveragestoJackandtookactiveprecautionsto avoidJackconsuminganyalcoholicbeverages.This,incombinationwithotherfactorsthat contributedtotheaccidentthatresultedinPeter’sinjuries,suggestthatTommyisnota proximatecausetoPeter’sinjuriesandthereforewillnotbeheldliable.
FACTS
● Tommypurchasedbeerandtequilaforinviteesofhispartyathisresidenceat6782PasadoRd
○ HepurchasedDr.PepperforTommyinlieuofanyalcohol
○ TommyhadinvitedhisgirlfriendandfriendsandhemadethemawarethatJackwas under21yearsofageand“can’tdrink”
■ ItwasoneofTommy’sfriendsthatgaveJackthebeerandpeerpressuredhim
○ HealsomadeJackpromisethathewouldnotdrinkandconsideredJackotherwise responsiblesohedidnotfeeltogofurtherinhisprecautionsotherthansurveillingJack andthecoolerincase-thisisconsistentwithJack’stestimonythathepromisedTommy hewouldn’tdrinkandthatJackhadnointentionofsneakinganydrinks
○ Asanadditionalprecaution,Tommystoredallofthealcohol(beerandtequila)thathe hadpurchasedforthepartyinacoolerthatwaslocatedrightinfrontofhim
■ Tommydidleavetheroomwiththecoolerattendedtousetherestroom,which allowedJackunrestrictedaccesstothedrinks
■ Atthistime,uninvitedguestswhowereunawareofJack’sagealsobegantoenter thepartyandhelpthemselvestodrinksandsnacks
○ WhenhecaughtJackwithabeer,Tommyimmediatelyandsternlyaskedhimtodiscard thedrinkandJackreluctantlyagreed-ifTommywasneutraltoJack’sdrinking,hewould nothavefirmlydirectedhimtodumpthebeer
■ However,Tommydidnotwatchthedrinkbeingdumpedandtrustedhisbrotherto followhisinstructionsimmediately
■ JackdidnotdumpthedrinkimmediatelyoutofanxietyofTommy’sfriend,who hadgivenhimthebeer,stillwatchinghim
○ Tommylefttheroomforafewminutestousetherestroom,whichiswhenJackreceived theMIPfromIVFPofficers(Tommyfoundthisoutuponhisreturninside)
● ReceivingtheMIPcausedJackmuchanxietyandherodeawayonTommy’s“rustbucket”ofa bikeindistressbeforeTommywasabletostophim
○ Atthistime,Jackonlyhad“twosips”ofthebeerandnootherdrinks/substancesandhe hadeatenaburritopriorto;heis6’1”and204lbs,w/nomedications/medicalconditions
● JackisnotaresidentofIVandnotusedtoIVstreetsorcustoms-butitiscustomaryatUCLA (whereheisfrom)forpedestriansto
○ Healsodidnothaveaplanastowherehewasgoing,hejustrodeoff
● Peterliveson6535ElNidoLanewhichisafewminutesawaybybikefromTommy’saddress
○ ElNidoisaone-waystreetand“devoidofstreetlights”-IVstreetsalsotypicallyhave carsparkedliningthecurb,obstructingdriverandpedestrianvisibility
● Peterwastextinghisroommatewithoutlookingupandcrossingthestreetmid-block,inattentive topotentialoncomingtraffic-hewasalsowearingdarkcoloredclothingandabaseballcap
● JackdidnotnoticePeteruntilthemomentofimpact-hetriedtobrakewhenhedid
○ BrakeswereknowntobeworkingasstatedbyJack-heusedthemturningafastcorner priortotheaccident
● Petersuffereda“brokenarmandwrist,bruisedhipandthigh,andequallynastyabrasions”
○ Jack’sinjuries“aconcussion,dislocatedshoulder,andmultiplecontusions
● TommyvigorouslydeniesknowinglyfurnishingalcoholtoJackandthereforedeniesbeinga proximatecauseofPeter’sinjuries
ANALYSIS
I. IsTommyliableforPeter’sinjuriesunderaCaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(d)claim?
WemustconcludeifTommywillbeheldliableforPeter’sinjuriesundertheCaliforniaCivil Code§1714(d)claim.Tommy,asaU.S.Citizen,isboundbyfederalandstatelaws.Tommyhas immunityfortheclaimsunderCaliforniaCivilCode§1714(c),whichstatesthat“Exceptas providedinsubdivision(d),nosocialhostwhofurnishesalcoholicbeveragestoanypersonmay beheldlegallyaccountablefordamagessufferedbythatperson,orforinjurytothepersonor propertyof,ordeathof,anythirdperson,resultingfromtheconsumptionofthosebeverages” (CaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(c)).CaliforniaCivilCode§1714(d)statesthefollowing” “Nothinginsubdivision(c)shallprecludeaclaimagainstaparent,guardian,oranotheradult whoknowinglyfurnishesalcoholicbeveragesathisorherresidencetoapersonwhomheorshe knows,orshouldhaveknown,tobeunder21yearsofage,inwhichcase,notwithstanding subdivision(b),thefurnishingofthealcoholicbeveragemaybefoundtobetheproximatecause ofresultinginjuriesordeath”(Cal.CivilCode§1714(d). Tommyadmitstoeveryelementofthe codeexcepttwo,whicharethatheknowinglyfurnishedalcoholtoJackandthatthealleged furnishingtheproximatecauseofPeter’sinjuries.However,thesearethetwoelementsthat wouldneedtobemetinorderforTommytobeheldliableunderCaliforniaCivilCode§1714(d) astheimmunityof §1714(c)isonlyrevokedwhentheseelementsaremet.Iwillnowanalyze
theconstituentelementsofthelawtodetermineifitissupportedbythefactsofthecaseand assessthestrengthofthecase.
A. DidTommyknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack?
First,wemustanalyzethefactstodetermineifTommydidknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack. AsitpertainstotheCaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(d)claim,Tommywouldhaveto knowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack.Thedefinitionof knowingly furnishing is“tointentionally, withknowledge,supply,provide,orprovideforuse(Black’sLawDictionary).”Tommyadmits topurchasingalcoholicbeverageswiththeintentionofservingthemtotheguestsheinvitedto hisparty However,hespecificallypurchasedandgaveDr PeppertoJackinlieuofanyalcohol ashisintentionforthenightwastomakesureJackwouldn’tdrinkanyalcohol.Hetookmany precautionsforthesame,includingtellingJacknottodrinkorsneakanyofthealcoholicdrinks, makinghimpromisenottodrink,andlettinghisguestsknowthatJackwasunderage.Aside fromwhenhesteppedoutside,Tommyalsoguardedthecoolerofalcoholincloseproximityto himselftokeepaneyeonJack.WhenhefoundoutthatJackhadabeerinhispossession, Tommysternlydirectedhimtodiscardthebeer.Ifhewasneutralordidn’tmindJackhavingthe beer,TommywouldnothavetoldJacktodumpthebeer Thesefactspointtothefactthat TommydidnotintentionallyorwithknowledgeprovidealcoholtoJack.Therefore,by definition,TommydidnotknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack.
B. WastheallegedfurnishingtheproximatecauseofPeter’sinjuries?
Next,wemustdetermineiftheallegedfurnishingwouldbeconsideredtheproximatecauseof Peter’sinjuries.IfTommyknowinglyfurnishedbeertoJack,CC§1714(d)(1)saysthatimmunity ofsubsection(c)nolongerappliesandthatfurnishing[insteadoftheminor’sconsumption] “ may betheproximatecause”ofPeter’sinjuries.InorderforliabilitytoapplytoTommy,the courtwouldhavetosaythathisfurnishingofbeertoJackwastheproximatecauseofPeter’s injuries. Rutherford v Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997)16Cal.4th953statesthatCaliforniacourtsuse the“substantialfactor”testtodeterminewhetherdefendant'sactwastheproximatecauseof plaintiff’sinjuries.Accordingto Rutherford (atpp.968—969], “Theterm‘substantialfactor’has notbeenjudiciallydefinedwithspecificity,andindeedithasbeenobservedthatitis‘neither possiblenordesirabletoreduceittoanylowerterms.’Thiscourthassuggestedthataforce whichplaysonlyan‘infinitesimal’or‘theoretical’partinbringingaboutinjury,damage,orloss isnotasubstantialfactor.AccordingtoCACI430.Causation:SubstantialFactor,asubstantial factorincausingharmmustbemorethanaremoteortrivialfactorbutdoesnothavetobethe onlycauseoftheharm.Iftheactwasasubstantialfactorinbringingaboutthedamage,thenthe defendantwillbeheldliableunlesshecanraiseasufficientdefensetorebuttheclaims.
I. Sub-Issue1:WasTommy’sfurnishingmorethanaremote[theoretical]factorin causingPeter’sinjuries?
WemustdetermineifTommy’sfurnishingismorethanaremote[theoretical]factorin causingPeter’sinjuriesasthefurnishingmustbefoundmorethanremoteforTommyto befoundliable.Remotemeanstoofarapartintime(ortheeffectistoouncertain)andis thereforenotabasisforrecoveryofdamages(https://www.translegal.com).Tommy’s residenceison6782PasadoRdandPeter’sresidenceison6535ElNidoLn,thesame streetinwhichtheaccidenttookplacewhilePeterwascrossingmid-street.Thelocations
are0.8milesapart,regardlessofeitherroute(viaSabadoTardeorTrigo)andabouta4 minutebikerideifanindividualweretogodirectlyfromTommy’sresidencetoPeter’s. AtthespeedJackwasriding,hecouldhavereachedthesiteoftheaccidentinunderthat time,ifheweretohavedirectlyrodetherefromthepartyatTommy’s.However,itis worthnotingthatJackstatesaroughly15minutetimespanbetweenconsumingthebeer andthetimeoftheaccident(Jack’sdeposition).Itisalsoworthtakingintoconsideration theroutesJackmighthavetakenasanunfamiliarguesttoIslaVista.Therefore,although thesetwolocationsarearguablycloseinproximity,thedisparitiesintimebetweenJack leavingthepartyatTommy’sandtheaccidentaswellashislackofknowledgeofthe roadscanbeconsideredalackofremoteness.Thetimeanddistancespanbetween Tommy’sallegedfurnishingandJack’saccidentwithPeterpresentmanyopportunities forotherfactorstocontributetotheaccidentthatmaybemoresignificantandsubstantial tocausingPeter’sinjuriesthanTommy’sallegedfurnishingand/orJack’ssubsequent inebriation.Thiswillbediscussedfurtherinthenextsection.Forthepurposeofthis sub-issue,however,Tommy’sallegedfurnishingdoesnotappeartobemorethana remotefactorincausingPeter’sinjuries.
II. Sub–Issue2.WasTommy’sfurnishingmorethanatrivial[infinitesimal]factorin causingPeter’sinjuries?
Lastly,wemustanalyzeanddetermineifTommy’sallegedfurnishingismorethana trivial[infinitesimal]factorincausingPeter’sinjuries.Furnishingmustbemorethan trivialforTtobefoundliable.Trivialmeans“trifling;inconsiderable;ofsmallworthor importance(Black’sLawDictionary).”Forthis,wemustconsiderallfactorsin comparisontoTommy’sallegedfurnishingorJack’sconsumptionofthealcohol. ConsideringJack’ssize(6’1”inheightand204lbs)andhavingnomedicalconditionsor medicationsthatmayexacerbatetheeffectofalcohol,the“twosips”ofbeerthathe testifiestohavingconsumedhavelittlechanceofcausinginebriation(Jack’sDeposition). Incomparisontothis,wehaveamultitudeoffactorsrelatingtoJack’semotionalstate leadinguptoandatthetimeoftheaccident,thelocationanditsenvironmental conditionsunderwhichtheaccidentoccurred,andPeter’slackofawarenessofhis surroundings.Rather,thereceivingoftheMIPandsubsequentanxietyanddistressJack experiencedcanbearguedasamoreprobablecausetohislackofawarenesstohis surroundingsthatmayhaveledtotheaccident.AccordingtoJack’sdeposition,T=the bikewasa“rustbucket”buthadworkingbrakeswhichhestatedthathehadtouseona hardturnpriortotheaccident(Jack’sDeposition).Thefactthathewascognizantenough tousethebrakewhenneededsuggestshemayhavenotbeenatapointofinebriationbut ratherwasridingfastoutofanxietyandpanic.Nowtoconsiderthelocationand environmentalcircumstancesunderwhichtheaccidentoccurred,ElNidoisaone-way streetinIslaVistathatis“devoidofstreetlights”andnarrow(roughlyhalfthewidthof typicalroads).Around10PMonaweeknightclosetofinalsweek,moststudentswillbe athomeoroncampuspreparingfortheirexamsandthosewhoowncarstypicallywon’t drivetocampusforstudying.Therefore,wecaninfertherewereprobablycarsliningthe
curbofthestreet,furtherobstructingJackandPeter’sviewofeachotherinthedark. ThesefactorscontributetowhyJackmayhavenotseenPeteruntilthemomentofimpact (Jack’sDeposition).Lastly,wecanseethatPeter’slackofawarenessinhissurroundings wasalsoacontributingfactorfortheaccident.Peterwastextinghisroommateonhis phonewhilecrossingmid-street(notonamarkedcrosswalk)withoutlookingupand wearingdarkclothing.HisoutfitmadehimevenharderforJacktohavenoticedinthe darkandhisinattentivenesstosurroundingsincombinationwiththecarsobstructinghis viewmayhavecausedPetertonotnoticeJack’sbikeapproachingaswell.Underthe combinationofthesefactorsandcircumstances,anypersononabikeoroperatinga vehiclecouldhavecollidedwithPeter,eveniftheywerenotinebriated.Therefore,itcan beconcludedthatTommy’sfurnishingwasnotmorethanatrivialfactorincausing Peter’sinjuriesastherewerenumerousotherfactorsthatcontributedsubstantiallymore totheaccident.
CONCLUSION
TommywillnotbeheldliableforPeter’sinjuriesunderaCaliforniaCivilCodeSection §1714(d)claim.Inregardstothefirstissue,thereissubstantialevidenceforthefactthathedid not knowingly furnishalcoholtoJack.Inaddition,theallegedfurnishingcanbearguedasnot beingmorethanaremoteortrivialfactorincausingPeter’sinjuriesduetothepresenceof numerousothercontributingfactorsthatwerefarmoresignificantincausingtheaccidentand subsequently,Peter’sinjuries.Therefore,Tommyhasasolidcaseindefenseofhisalleged violationofCaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(d)withfurtherlegalresearch.
RECOMMENDATION
IwouldrecommendthatweshouldacceptTommyasaclientanddefendhiscase.Isuggestthat weconductmoreresearchintoPeter’sphysicalconditionleadinguptoandduringtheincident. Morespecifically,wewouldneedinformationaboutwhetherPeterwasintoxicated,hasany medicalconditionsordisabilities,andthecircumstancesunderwhichhewascrossingthemiddle ofthestreettohisresidence.Thisinformationcanhelpusconcludemoreconfidentlythat TommyisnotliableforPeter’sinjuriesviaproximatecauseunderCaliforniaCivilCodeSection §1714(d)byconsideringtheotherfactorscontributingtotheaccident.