holding that the negligent undertaking theory of liability was implicated where plaintiff alleged that defendant breached its contractual obligation to a third party
How later courts described this case
- holding that the negligent undertaking theory of liability was implicated where plaintiff alleged that defendant breached its contractual obligation to a third party
- recognizing potential duty to act pursuant to the negligent undertaking doctrine, but finding no such undertaking, and hence no duty, in litigation concerning delayed installation of a traffic signal
- “The threshold element of a cause of action for negligence is the existence of a duty ... ”
- “[F]ailure to alleviate a risk cannot be regarded as tantamount 2 to increasing that risk[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Lichtman v. Siemens Indus. Inc., 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (2017)
For the reasons we have already discussed, White and Paz are distinguishable.
The opinion
MOSK, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority that defendants owed no duty towards plaintiff in this case. As the majority correctly state: “[T]he City was not relying on defendants to complete the traffic signal installation within any particular time . . . .” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 561.) Stated another way, nothing in the record establishes that by failing to install the traffic signal by January 12, 1991, when the accident occurred, the developer or its agents breached any legal duty contractually imposed or otherwise. This is therefore not a case in which a developer breached an obligation to install traffic improvements before commencing the operation of a commercial or residential development. Under such circumstances, a municipality may be said to rely upon a developer’s timely installation of the traffic signal, and the developer could accordingly be held liable for harm resulting from its negligent delay based on that reliance. (Rest.2d Torts, § 324A, subd. (c).) Thus, I do not understand the majority as foreclosing liability for negligent delay when a developer has breached a legal obligation to install a traffic improvement by a certain time or under a certain condition.