Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Matlock
California Court of Appeal
60 Cal. App. 4th 583 (1997)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Timothy Matlock (defendant), age 17, purchased two packs of cigarettes from a gas station—one for himself and the other for Eric Erdley, age 15. The two boys began smoking as they trespassed onto a private storage facility, where approximately 200 wooden telephone poles were stacked up high on the ground. Matlock and Erdley were joined by two younger boys, who walked with them on the poles. One of the younger boys ran into Erdley, who dropped his lit cigarette down between the poles and onto a bed of sand. Erdley unsuccessfully tried to put out the cigarette. Shortly thereafter, Matlock and Erdley were seen running away from the site. The poles caught fire. Two fire departments extinguished the flames. Erdley was insured under a $100,000 policy with Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (Wawanesa) (plaintiff). The insurance company paid $89,000 to Woodman Pole Company for the property damage, $10,000 to the Orange County Fire Department, and $1,000 to the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Thereafter, Wawanesa subrogated to Erdley’s rights and filed suit against Matlock and his father (defendant) for contribution. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded Wawanesa $44,500 against the Matlocks. In holding for Wawanesa, the trial court noted that it relied, in part, on a state statute that made it unlawful to provide cigarettes to minors. The Matlocks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sills, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.