Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Joshua Jackson suffered serious injuries when he attempted to dislodge a kite from a power line maintained by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) on the property of Eve Prince. The parties do not dispute that PG&E is immune from direct liability to Jackson under Civil Code[1]section 846, which provides with certain exceptions that a property owner owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose. The question here is whether Prince, who might be liable to Jackson under one of the statutory exceptions, may recover on her cross-complaint alleging PG&E is liable for implied contractual indemnity based on its breach of a contractual duty owed to her to maintain its power line easement in repair.
Court conclude that, even assuming a claim for implied contractual indemnity may be predicated on an alleged breach of an easement duty, PG&Es immunity from liability to Jackson under section 846 nonetheless bars Prince from recovering indemnification as a matter of law. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the matter to that court with directions to enter judgment in favor of PG&E.
Comments on Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company