Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.
Supreme Court of California
34 Cal. 3d 49, 192 Cal. Rptr. 857, 665 P.2d 947 (1983)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
In November 1974, Charles Bigbee (plaintiff) was severely injured after being struck by an automobile while standing in a phone booth owned by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (Pacific) (defendant). Bigbee brought an action against Pacific, alleging in part that Pacific had acted negligently in deciding to place the phone booth close to a busy street where drivers were likely to speed. At trial, Pacific brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Pacific did not owe a duty of care to Bigbee because, as a matter of law, a car could not foreseeably veer off the street and strike the phone booth with a user inside. The trial court granted Pacific’s motion. Bigbee appealed the decision, arguing that the foreseeability of the alleged harm was an issue for the trier of fact and should not have been decided as a matter of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bird, C.J.)
Dissent (Kroninger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
