White

I concur in the result reached by the majority that no triable issue of fact exists and summary judgment is the appropriate dis-positive procedure. The novel issue before us is whether one member of a social group, composed in this instance of minors, is liable for the tortious conduct of another member of such group, either by reason of failure to prevent such tortious conduct or failure to prevent the complaining member from placing himself or herself in a position of exposure to the tortious conduct of another member.

The pivotal point is whether mere membership in a social group creates a legal duty on each member to act for the protection of every other member. Responsibility for tortious conduct rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute or otherwise, owed by a defendant to the injured person. (See Coleman v. California Y. Meeting, etc. (1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 579 [ 81 P.2d 469 ]; Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 481 ]; Wynne v. Orcutt Union Sch. Dist. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1108 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 458 ] Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 814 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 854 ].) In the absence of a…

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…

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.

(1a) 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 [¶] 1. It is a fundamental principle of tort law that a defendant owes a duty of reasonable care regarding his actions. [¶] 2. Penal Code Section 272 prescribed a duty of care. [¶] 3. The adolescent peer group is a powerful influence in the lives of teenagers. [¶] 4. The…