RONALD M. v. White

California Court of Appeal

RONALD M. v. White

112 Cal. App. 3d 473, 169 Cal. Rptr. 370, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2472

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 21, 1980

DocketCiv. 19363

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 Cal. App. 3d 473 (RONALD M. v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

RONALD M. v. White, 112 Cal. App. 3d 473, 169 Cal. Rptr. 370, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

PARAS, Acting P. J.

The 14-year-old plaintiff and appellant was one of 10 minors who were occupants of a motor vehicle on July 11, 1978. The minor driver’s dangerous operation of the vehicle caused it to crash, seriously injuring plaintiff. Plaintiff sued all the other nine, including respondents Jennifer White and Billie Boyd, to whom the trial court gave summary judgment. All the minors had spent a day of leisure together, some consuming alcohol, marijuana, and “Angel Dust.” Like plaintiff, White and Boyd were passengers; the driver was defendant Tim Cantrell.

Although White and Boyd were present throughout the day, they did not themselves consume any alcohol or drugs, nor did they furnish or help to pay for any. At no time did they drive the car.

Plaintiff contends it was error to let White and Boyd out on summary judgment because “A. One Minor May Contribute to the Delinquency of Another Minor [If] 1. It is a fundamental principle of tort law that a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care regarding his actions. [11] 2. Penal Code Section 272 prescribed a duty of care. [1i] 3. The adolescent peer group is a powerful influence in the lives of teenagers. [If] 4. The defendants contributed to the delinquency of Ronald M. thereby causing his injuries. [U] 5. The defendants should be held to an adult standard of care. [1i] B. Defendants’ Request for [476]*476Summary Judgment Should Have Been Denied Because Their Motion Was Not Supported Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 437C.”

We are not impressed. First, there is no showing that the two defendants themselves did anything violative of Penal Code section 272; they were simply present. Second, it is doubtful that as minors themselves their actions would constitute a violation or that civil damages would flow therefrom. Third, there is no causal relationship reasonably demonstrated between their actions and plaintiff's’ injury.

The trial judge correctly removed these two defendants from the litigation. The judgment is affirmed.¹

Evans, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PARAS, Acting P. J.

The 14-year-old plaintiff and appellant was one of 10 minors who were occupants of a motor vehicle on July 11, 1978. The minor driver’s dangerous operation of the vehicle caused it to crash, seriously injuring plaintiff. Plaintiff sued all the other nine, including respondents Jennifer White and Billie Boyd, to whom the trial court gave summary judgment. All the minors had spent a day of leisure together, some consuming alcohol, marijuana, and “Angel Dust.” Like plaintiff, White and Boyd were passengers; the driver was defendant Tim Cantrell.

Although White and Boyd were present throughout the day, they did not themselves consume any alcohol or drugs, nor did they furnish or help to pay for any. At no time did they drive the car.

Plaintiff contends it was error to let White and Boyd out on summary judgment because “A. One Minor May Contribute to the Delinquency of Another Minor [If] 1. It is a fundamental principle of tort law that a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care regarding his actions. [11] 2. Penal Code Section 272 prescribed a duty of care. [1i] 3. The adolescent peer group is a powerful influence in the lives of teenagers. [If] 4. The defendants contributed to the delinquency of Ronald M. thereby causing his injuries. [U] 5. The defendants should be held to an adult standard of care. [1i] B. Defendants’ Request for [476]*476Summary Judgment Should Have Been Denied Because Their Motion Was Not Supported Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 437C.”

We are not impressed. First, there is no showing that the two defendants themselves did anything violative of Penal Code section 272; they were simply present. Second, it is doubtful that as minors themselves their actions would constitute a violation or that civil damages would flow therefrom. Third, there is no causal relationship reasonably demonstrated between their actions and plaintiff's’ injury.

The trial judge correctly removed these two defendants from the litigation. The judgment is affirmed.¹

Evans, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 Cal. App. 3d 473, 169 Cal. Rptr. 370, 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-m-v-white-calctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack