Myrick v. Mastagni
California Court of Appeal
185 Cal. App. 4th 1082 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
The city of Paso Robles, California identified unreinforced masonry buildings within its jurisdiction that would be potentially hazardous if an earthquake struck. One of the buildings identified was the Acorn Building, owned by Mary Mastagni (defendant). In 1989, Paso Robles notified Mastagni that the Acorn Building was potentially hazardous. In 1992, Paso Robles passed a public safety ordinance requiring all potentially hazardous buildings to be retrofitted in compliance with earthquake safety standards (seismic retrofitting) by 2007. The compliance deadline was later extended to 2018. In December 2003, the San Simeon earthquake struck Paso Robles. Jennifer Myrick (plaintiff), a worker in the Acorn Building, was killed when a portion of the building collapsed and crushed her. Jennifer’s survivors, led by Leroy Myrick (plaintiff), filed a wrongful-death action against Mastagni, arguing that Mastagni’s negligent failure to complete the seismic retrofitting on the Acorn Building had caused Jennifer’s death. Mastagni challenged, arguing that she had no duty to complete the seismic retrofitting until 2018, which was the compliance deadline established by the ordinance. The jury found Mastagni negligent and awarded Leroy $1.2 million in damages. Mastagni appealed, arguing that her statutory compliance was an absolute defense against Leroy’s negligence claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilbert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.