Faiez Ennabe v. Carlos Manosa

58 Cal.4th 697 (2014)

Summary by Mary M. Howell, Esq.:

Liability for Providing Alcohol: Host who provided alcohol to guests and charged admission fee may be responsible for death related to alcohol consumption at her party.

*** End Summary ***

Ennabe v. Manosa

58 Cal.4th 697 (2014)

701*701 Innabi Law Group, Abdalla J. Innabi and Amer Innabi for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Morris, Polich & Purdy, Richard H. Nakamura, Jr., Dean A. Olson and Sheena Y. Kwon for Defendants and Respondents.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Susan Duncan Lee, Acting State Solicitor General, Alicia M. B. Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, and Jerald L. Mosley, Deputy Attorney General, for Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the Supreme Court.

OPINION

WERDEGAR, J. —

Beginning in 1971 this court decided three cases that together reversed decades of previous law and recognized, for the first time, that sellers or furnishers of alcoholic beverages could be liable for injuries proximately caused by those who imbibed. (Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153 [95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151]; Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 16 Cal.3d 313 [128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719]; Coulter v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 144 [145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 577 P.2d 669].) In 1978, the Legislature abrogated the holdings of those cases, largely reinstating the prior common law rule that the consumption of alcohol, not the service of alcohol, is the proximate cause of any resulting injury. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602, subd. (c); Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (b).)^[1] The Legislature’s action in essence created civil immunity for sellers and furnishers of alcohol in most situations. The Legislature also enacted section 25602.1, which created some narrow exceptions to this broad immunity, and we find one such exception relevant to this case. In addition to permitting liability in some circumstances for the 702*702 provision of alcohol (i.e., the sale, furnishing or giving away of alcoholic beverages) by those licensed to sell alcohol (or who are required to be licensed), section 25602.1 also states that “any other person” who sells alcoholic beverages (or causes them to be sold) to an obviously intoxicated minor loses his or her civil immunity and can be liable for resulting injuries or death. Liability of such “other person[s]” is limited to those who sell alcohol; civil immunity is still the rule for nonlicensees who merely furnish or give drinks away.

We consider in this case whether defendant Jessica Manosa^[2] can be liable under the foregoing exception when, at her party, an underage, intoxicated guest who was charged a fee to enter consumed alcoholic beverages defendant supplied and subsequently, in a drunken state, killed someone in an automobile accident. To assist in resolving the issues in this case, we solicited and obtained the views of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control,^[3] the state agency charged by our state Constitution with enforcement of the laws relating to the consumption of alcoholic beverages in this state. (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22, 5th par. [“The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall have the exclusive power, except as herein provided and in accordance with laws enacted by the Legislature, to license the … sale of alcoholic beverages in this State….”].)

After considering the views of the parties and the Department of ABC, we conclude the pleaded facts, which allege defendant charged an entrance fee to some guests (including the minor who caused the death), payment of which entitled guests to drink the provided alcoholic beverages, raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant sold alcoholic beverages, or caused them to be sold, within the meaning of section 25602.1, rendering her potentially liable under the terms of that statute as a person who sold alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor. Having reached this decision, we need not, and thus do not, address the further question whether defendant might also be liable on the ground she was a person who was required to be licensed who furnished alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

Because the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor, we reverse.

703*703 I. BACKGROUND

As the case comes to this court following the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we “recite the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here, plaintiffs).” (Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 758, 764 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 666, 233 P.3d 1066].) On the evening of April 27, 2007, defendant Jessica Manosa (Manosa) hosted a party at a vacant rental residence owned by her parents, defendants Carlos and Mary Manosa, without their consent. The party was publicized by word of mouth, telephone, and text messaging, resulting in an attendance of between 40 and 60 people. The vast majority of attendees were, like Manosa, under 21 years of age.

For her party, Manosa personally provided $60 for the purchase of rum, tequila, and beer. She also provided cups and cranberry juice, but nothing else. Two of Manosa’s friends, Mario Aparicio and Marcello Aquino, also provided money toward the initial purchase of alcohol, and Aquino purchased the alcoholic beverages for the party with this money. The beer was placed in a refrigerator in the kitchen, and the tequila and “jungle juice” (a mixture of rum and fruit juice) were placed outside on a table at the side of the house. Manosa did not have a license to sell alcoholic beverages.

Guests began to arrive at the party around 9:00 p.m., entering through a side gate in the yard. Aquino heard Manosa ask Todd Brown to “stand by the side gate to kind of control the people that came in and if he didn’t know them, then charge them some money to get into the party.” Brown thereafter served as a “bouncer,” standing at the gate and charging uninvited guests an admission fee of $3 to $5 per person. Once inside, partygoers enjoyed music played by a disc jockey Manosa had hired and could help themselves to the beer, tequila, and jungle juice.

Thomas Garcia, who had not been invited and was unknown to Manosa, testified that a “big, tall, husky, Caucasian dude” was charging an entrance fee to get into the party. Garcia paid $20 so that he and three or four of his friends could enter. The person who took Garcia’s money, presumably Brown, told him alcoholic beverages were available if he wanted them. Mike Bosley, another uninvited guest, declared he was charged $5 to enter the party. Brown eventually collected between $50 and $60 in entrance fees, and this money was used to buy additional alcohol sometime during the party.^[4] 704*704 The record is unclear whether any attendees brought their own alcoholic beverages or whether Manosa provided the only alcohol consumed on the premises.

Sometime before midnight, decedent Andrew Ennabe arrived at the party; he was Manosa’s friend and an invited guest. Thomas Garcia and his friends arrived about 30 minutes later and were charged admission. Ennabe and Garcia, both under 21 years of age, were visibly intoxicated on arrival. Garcia in particular exhibited slurred speech and impaired faculties. By his own reckoning, he had consumed at least four shots of whiskey before arriving. Although Garcia later denied drinking anything at Manosa’s party, other guests reported seeing him drinking there.

Once inside the gate, Garcia became rowdy, aggressive, and obnoxious. He made obscene and vaguely threatening comments to female guests, and either he or a friend dropped his pants. While Manosa claimed she was neither aware of Garcia’s presence nor that he was causing problems with other guests, Garcia was eventually asked to leave for his inappropriate behavior. Ennabe and some other guests escorted Garcia and his friends off the premises and ultimately to their car. One of Garcia’s friends spit on Ennabe, prompting Ennabe to chase him into the street. Garcia, who by this time was driving away, ran over Ennabe, severely injuring him. Ennabe later died from his injuries.^[5]

Plaintiffs Faiez and Christina Ennabe, on behalf of themselves and the estate of their son, filed a wrongful death action against defendant Manosa and her parents. Plaintiffs asserted three causes of action: general negligence, premises liability, and liability under section 25602.1. Defendants moved for summary judgment or adjudication, claiming plaintiffs could not show defendants were liable under section 25602.1, which permits liability for certain persons who serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors, and that they were entitled to civil immunity under section 25602, subdivision (b) and Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c). Plaintiffs countered that by charging an entrance fee, Manosa had “sold” alcohol to party guests and was thus not entitled to civil immunity. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and, in the alternative, also granted the motion for summary adjudication. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

We granted plaintiffs’ petition for review.

705*705 II. DISCUSSION

“`”A trial court properly grants a motion for summary judgment only if no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); [citation].) The moving party bears the burden of showing the court that the plaintiff `has not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish,'” the elements of his or her cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] We review the trial court’s decision de novo, liberally construing the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolving doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2009) 45Cal.4th 1008, 1017-1018 [90 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 201 P.3d 1147].)

This case involves the scope of statutory immunity for social hosts who provide alcohol to their guests and the exception to that immunity for hosts who sell alcoholic beverages, or cause them to be sold, to obviously intoxicated minors. The history of the applicable statutes is helpful to gain a proper understanding of the issues.

A. The Immunity Statutes

For the better part of the 20th century, California case law held that a person who furnished alcoholic beverages to another person was not liable for any damages resulting from the latter’s intoxication. (Cole v. Rush (1955) 45 Cal.2d 345 [289 P.2d 450]; Fleckner v. Dionne (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 246 [210 P.2d 530]; Hitson v. Dwyer(1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 803 [143 P.2d 952]; see Lammers v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.(1921) 186 Cal. 379 [199 P. 523] [dictum].) The Legislature acquiesced in these decisions, also known as dramshop laws, by declining to enact a contrary statutory scheme that would permit civil liability (Cole, supra, at p. 355 [noting the Legislature’s failure to change the law despite making numerous other statutory changes “is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended”]), although it enacted legislation making the selling or furnishing of an alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated person a misdemeanor in 1953 (former § 25602).^[6] This court first departed from the general common law rule of nonliability in 1971 when, noting the trend in a majority of other states, we ruled that a vendor could be liable for selling alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person who thereafter inflicted injury on third persons. (Vesely v. Sager, supra, 5 Cal.3d 153.) Overruling Cole v. Rush, 706*706 Vesely held that furnishing alcohol to an already intoxicated person could be the proximate cause of an injury to a third person on a showing that the person furnishing the alcohol violated section 25602, the misdemeanor statute enacted in 1953. (Vesely, supra, at pp. 165-167.)

Five years later, in Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club, supra, 16 Cal.3d 313, this court broadened the scope of potential liability. Bernhard involved a commercial vendor in Nevada that furnished alcohol to a California resident who then proceeded to injure another California resident while driving drunk in California. The defendant inBernhard, a Nevada corporation, argued that because the misdemeanor statute had no extraterritorial effect, it was entitled to immunity. (Bernhard, supra, at p. 323.) Although our decision in Vesely v. Sager, supra, 5 Cal.3d 153, had relied on section 25602 for its analysis, Bernhard read Vesely in broader terms: “Although we chose to impose liability on the Vesely defendant on the basis of his violating the applicable statute, the clear import of our decision was that there was no bar to civil liability under modern negligence law. Certainly, we said nothing in Vesely indicative of an intention to retain the former rule that an action at common law does not lie.” (Bernhard, supra, at p. 325.) Bernhard thus downplayed Vesely‘s reliance on the criminality of serving an intoxicated person as the analytical linchpin of the modern rule permitting liability.

Finally, in 1978, this court extended the Vesely holding to noncommercial social hosts, reasoning that a private person who serves alcohol in a noncommercial setting to an obviously intoxicated guest with the knowledge that person intends to drive a vehicle while in an intoxicated state fails to act with reasonable care. (Coulter v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 153-155 (plur. opn. of Richardson, J.); id.at p. 156 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J., joined by Bird, C. J.); id. at p. 157 (conc. & dis. opn. of Newman, J.).) As the plurality explained: “We think it evident that the service of alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person by one who knows that such intoxicated person intends to drive a motor vehicle creates a reasonably foreseeablerisk of injury to those on the highway. [Citation.] Simply put, one who serves alcoholic beverages under such circumstances fails to exercise reasonable care.” (Coulter, supra, at pp. 152-153.)

The Legislature responded to this trilogy of cases in 1978 by expressly abrogating their holdings and largely reinstating the previous common law rule that the consumption of alcohol, not the service of alcohol, is the proximate cause of any resulting injury. This 1978 legislation took three forms, spread across both the Civil Code and the Business and Professions Code. First, although Civil Code former section 1714 had provided generally that everyone is responsible for his own negligent or willful acts, the Legislature amended that statute, placing the existing language in new 707*707 subdivision (a) and adding subdivisions (b) and (c) to qualify that general principle. New subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1714 provided: “It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holdings in cases such as Vesely v[.] Sager (5 Cal.3d 153, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151), Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (16 Cal.3d 313, 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719), and Coulter v. Superior Court ([21] Cal.3d [144] [145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 577 P.2d 669]) and to reinstate the prior judicial interpretation of this section as it relates to proximate cause for injuries incurred as a result of furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, namely that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.” (Stats. 1978, ch. 929, § 2, p. 2904.) Along these same lines, Civil Code section 1714, new subdivision (c) provided: “No social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person shall be held legally accountable for damages suffered by such person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of such beverages.” (Stats. 1978, ch. 929, § 2, p. 2904.)

(1) In the second change, the Legislature amended section 25602 to its current version by adding subdivisions (b) and (c). (Stats. 1978, ch. 929, § 1, pp. 2903, 2904.) Section 25602, whose previous sole provision made it a misdemeanor to serve an obviously intoxicated person, now provided in subdivision (b) that “No person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage [to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person] … shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.” Section 25602, new subdivision (c), like Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (b), expressly declared the Legislature’s intent to overruleVesely, Bernhard, and Coulter. This “sweeping civil immunity” (Strang v. Cabrol(1984) 37 Cal.3d 720, 724 [209 Cal.Rptr. 347, 691 P.2d 1013]) was intended “to supersede evolving common law negligence principles which would otherwise permit a finding of liability under the[se] circumstances” (id. at p. 725).

The third prong of the legislative response to this court’s recognition of potential liability in alcohol cases authorized a “single statutory exception to the broad immunity created by the 1978 amendments.” (Strang v. Cabrol, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 723.) Newly enacted section 25602.1 (Stats. 1978, ch. 930, § 1, p. 2905), concerned underage drinkers and authorized a cause of action against licensees (i.e., those licensed to sell alcohol by the Department of ABC; see § 23009) who sell, furnish, or give away alcoholic beverages to 708*708 obviously intoxicated minors who later injure themselves or others.^[7] Subsequent case law emphasized the narrowness of section 25602.1’s exception to the general rule of civil immunity for providers of alcohol: the exception applied only to licensees (Cory v. Shierloh (1981) 29 Cal.3d 430, 440 [174 Cal.Rptr. 500, 629 P.2d 8] [noting in passing that nonlicensed sellers retained their immunity]), who provide alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors (seeRogers v. Alvas (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 997, 1004 [207 Cal.Rptr. 60]). Providing alcohol to sober minors or to obviously intoxicated adults was not actionable under section 25602.1. (See Cory, supra, at p. 440 [“The obviously intoxicated minor, and those injured by him, retain a cause of action against the seller, but an adult consumer, and those similarly injured by him do not [citation].”].) Nor did the exception apply to vendors who were required to be licensed, but for some reason were not (ibid. [“A preferred liability status is thus given to those sellers who refuse to obtain licenses.”]), or to other nonlicensees (Baker v. Sudo (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 936, 941-942 [240 Cal.Rptr. 38] [no liability for a social host]; Zieff v. Weinstein(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 243, 248 [236 Cal.Rptr. 536] [same]).

Following the 1978 amendments, two subsequent judicial decisions prompted further legislative refinement. First, in 1981, a minor who was injured when he became intoxicated at a party and crashed his car sued the party’s host claiming, among other things, the defendant engaged in “the unlicensed and unlawful sale and furnishing of alcoholic beverages to minors.” (Cory v. Shierloh, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 433.) When the trial court dismissed the case, citing the 1978 amendments that reestablished civil immunity, he appealed claiming the new laws were unconstitutional. (Id. at pp. 437-441.) This court upheld the new laws, despite noting the incongruity of conditioning liability on a defendant’s status as a licensee.^[8] (Cory, supra, at p. 440.) A few years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case involving a girl’s death in a drunk driving accident allegedly caused when a club operated by the United States Department of Defense at the Concord Naval Weapons Station served alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor. The federal appellate court held the club was not liable under section 25602.1 709*709 because it was not a licensed liquor provider under California law. (Gallea v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1986) 779 F.2d 1403.) As recognized by these two cases, persons who refused to obtain a liquor license and establishments permitted to serve alcohol on military bases without a license retained full immunity from liability.

(2) In response to these two judicial decisions, the Legislature in 1986 amended section 25602.1 to its current version, specifically to overrule Cory v. Shierloh in part and Gallea v. U.S. in full. (See Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1053 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 13, 1986, pp. 2-3.)^[9] A Senate committee report suggested the original law’s distinction between licensees and those sellers without licenses who were required by law to be licensed “may not have been foreseen or intended by the Legislature.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1053 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 13, 1986, p. 4 (Senate Analysis).) Significantly, both the Assembly and Senate committees involved in the 1986 amendment indicated the bill would not change existing law with regard to social hosts who provide alcoholic beverages free to their guests. (See Sen. Analysis, supra, at p. 4 [“The bill would not … affect the existing immunity for social hosts as it would not impose any liability for the free furnishing of alcohol.”].) Section 25602.1’s exception to immunity now embraces those required to be licensed and those who sell alcohol on military bases. In addition, the Legislature excepted from the rule of civil immunity “any other person” who sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

(3) In sum, if a plaintiff can establish the defendant provided alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor, and that such action was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or death, section 25602.1 — the applicable statute in this case — permits liability in two circumstances: (1) the defendant was either licensed to sell alcohol, required to be licensed, or federally authorized to sell alcoholic beverages in certain places, and the defendant sold, furnished, or gave the minor alcohol or caused alcohol to be sold, furnished, or given to the minor; or (2) the defendant was “any other person” (i.e., neither licensed nor required to be licensed), and he or she sold alcohol to the minor or caused it to be sold. Whereas licensees (and those required to be licensed) may be liable if they merely furnish or give an alcoholic beverage away, a nonlicensee may be liable only if a sale occurs; that is, a nonlicensee, such as 710*710 a social host, who merely furnishes or gives drinks away — even to an obviously intoxicated minor — retains his or her statutory immunity.^[10]

B. Application of Immunity Statutes

With this statutory scheme in mind, we turn to the merits. For purposes of our review following a grant of summary judgment, given properly pleaded facts and viewing the evidence favorably to the nonmoving party (here, plaintiffs), we may assume that Thomas Garcia was underage,^[11] that he paid to enter Manosa’s party, that he was obviously intoxicated, that he consumed some of the alcoholic beverages Manosa had provided for guests, that Manosa was not licensed to sell alcohol, and that Garcia’s intoxication was the proximate cause of Andrew Ennabe’s death. Manosa contends she cannot be liable for Ennabe’s death because, as a social host, she is entitled to civil immunity under both section 25602, subdivision (b) and Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c).

In order to resolve this question, we first discuss whether the Business and Professions Code applies to a purported social host such as Manosa. Finding that it does, we then examine whether Manosa sold alcohol within the meaning of section 25602.1. As we explain, we find the Business and Professions Code applies here, and that Manosa’s actions constituted a sale rendering her potentially liable as a person who sold alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

1. Does the Business and Professions Code Apply to Manosa?

At the time this case arose in 2007, Civil Code former section 1714, subdivision (c) provided: “No social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Stats. 2003, ch. 711*711 62, § 15, pp. 293, 294.)^[12] Section 25602, subdivision (b) appears largely to overlap that provision, providing: “No person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.” Section 25602.1, the exception to this statutory immunity, appears in the Business and Professions Code but the Civil Code contains no similar provision.

(4) Although neither party raises it, a preliminary issue is presented: Does section 25602.1 apply to a private person who, like Manosa, is not in the business or profession of selling or providing alcoholic drinks? We solicited supplemental briefing on, among other questions, whether that Business and Professions Code provision applies to businesses only, and whether private persons are governed solely by the Civil Code, which includes no explicit exception to its statutory immunity for those who sell or furnish alcoholic beverages to others. After considering the views of the parties and that of amicus curiae, the Department of ABC, we conclude that the placement of section 25602.1 in the Business and Professions Code does not limit the scope of that provision to commercial enterprises. First, the structure of section 25602.1 suggests it applies to noncommercial providers of alcohol. The statute addresses four categories of persons and we assume those falling in the first three categories — those licensed by the Department of ABC, those without licenses but who are nevertheless required to be licensed, and those authorized to sell alcohol by the federal government — are for the most part engaged in some commercial enterprise. The final category of persons addressed by section 25602.1 is more of a catchall: “any other person” who sells alcohol. (5) Consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language and the views of the Department of ABC, we find this final category includes private persons and ostensible social hosts who, for whatever reason, charge money for alcoholic drinks. To be sure, this category poses something of a tautology, for a person who sells alcoholic beverages is generally required to have a license (§ 23399.1), threatening to collapse this 712*712 fourth category into the second one,^[13] but we agree with the Department of ABC that the plain meaning of the word “person” as used in section 25602.1’s final category can include someone like defendant Manosa, a private person who was not engaged in a commercial enterprise.

Second, that the Business and Profession Code applies to more than “businesses” and “professions” is clearly inferable from other provisions in the code. Chapter 16 of the ABC Act is entitled “Regulatory Provisions” (§ 25600 et seq.) and includes section 25602.1, the exception to civil immunity at issue in this case. The same chapter includes provisions regulating such noncommercial activities as the possession or delivery of an alcoholic beverage in a public schoolhouse (§ 25608, subd. (a)), possession of an open container of alcohol in a public park (§ 25620), and bringing an alcoholic beverage into a state prison or county jail (§ 25603). This court has itself recognized that a violation of section 25658 (providing an alcoholic beverage to someone under 21 years old) can be committed by a private person. (In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 95 P.3d 906].) In addition, chapter 6 of the ABC Act, entitled “Issuance and Transfer of Licenses” (§§ 23950-24082), includes several provisions addressed to the noncommercial purveying of alcoholic beverages, such as section 24045.1 (temporary daily license available for events staged by political, charitable or religious organizations), section 24045.2 (temporary off-sale license available for nonprofit public television stations) and section 24045.3 (temporary off-sale licenses available for certain women’s educational and charitable organizations). The inclusion in the Business and Professions Code of so many statutes addressed to the noncommercial provision of alcoholic beverages further supports the conclusion that section 25602.1 is not, by virtue of its placement in that code, limited to commercial enterprises only.

Finally, although we reject the suggestion that the scope of the Business and Professions Code, and thus section 25602.1, is confined to commercial, profit-generating endeavors, we note that even were we to find to the contrary, and that all private, noncommercial social-host scenarios should be governed exclusively under the provisions of Civil Code section 1714, that argument would merely beg the question of when, and under what conditions, an ostensible social host (such as defendant Manosa) loses that characterization — and thus becomes a commercial entity falling within the jurisdiction of 713*713 the Business and Professions Code — by selling alcoholic beverages. Accordingly, merely attaching to Manosa the label of “social host” does not advance the analysis, for what would we call a social host who sells alcoholic beverages? We thus turn to an examination of whether Manosa sold alcoholic beverages within the meaning of section 25602.1.

2. Did Manosa Sell Alcoholic Beverages?

(6) Section 25602.1 provides in pertinent part that “a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death against [various licensees, as well as] … any other person who sells, or causes to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor where the … sale … of that beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained by that person.” (Italics added.) Thus, even aside from the question of licensing, a private “person” may be held to have shed her civil immunity if she sold alcoholic beverages (or caused them to be sold) within the meaning of section 25602.1. The meaning of the word “sold” in this context is a question of statutory construction. (7) “As with all questions of statutory interpretation, we attempt to discern the Legislature’s intent, `being careful to give the statute’s words their plain, commonsense meaning. [Citation.] If the language of the statute is not ambiguous, the plain meaning controls and resort to extrinsic sources to determine the Legislature’s intent is unnecessary.'” (Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space Dist. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282, 288 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 369, 206 P.3d 739].)

(8) At the threshold, we find two principles provide potential guidance, but, as is sometimes the case, those principles point in somewhat opposite directions. First, the state Constitution grants exclusive power to the State of California to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages (Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22, 1st par.), the Legislature has exercised that power by the enactment of the ABC Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 23000 et seq.), and the act expressly provides that its terms should be “liberally construed” to accomplish the stated purposes of the act, which include “to eliminate the evils of unlicensed… selling, and disposing of alcoholic beverages, and to promote temperance in the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages” (§ 23001, italics added). Giving the law a liberal construction that leans in favor of promoting temperance suggests that, in a close case, we should err on the side of permitting liability, for the possibility of liability may provide a strong deterrent against the provision of alcohol to minors, especially those who are already obviously intoxicated.

But at the same time, because the general rule of law is one of civil immunity for the sale or provision of alcoholic beverages (§ 25602, subd. (b); 714*714 Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (c)), section 25602.1 represents an exception to that general rule and therefore should be strictly construed to achieve the Legislature’s intent. (Hernandez v. Modesto Portuguese Pentecost Assn. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1281 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 229] [§ 25602.1 should be strictly construed]; Salem v. Superior Court(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 595, 600 [259 Cal.Rptr. 447] [same].) Giving section 25602.1 a strict construction suggests that, in a close case, we should lean towards finding a wide scope of civil immunity. Cognizant of both these concepts, we turn to the language of the ABC Act to discern the meaning of a “sale” of alcohol.

(9) The ABC Act is division 9 of the Business and Professions Code, beginning with section 23000. The preliminary provisions of the ABC Act set forth basic definitions for the act, which “govern the construction of this division” “[u]nless the context otherwise requires.” (§ 23002.) Section 23025 defines the terms “sell,” “sale,” and “to sell” as including “any transaction whereby, for any consideration, title to alcoholic beverages is transferred from one person to another.” (Italics added.) Because sections 25602 and 25602.1 also appear in the ABC Act, section 23025’s definition of “sale” applies to those sections. We thus agree with the Department of ABC that the definition of a sale of alcoholic beverages in section 23025 applies to section 25602.1.

Section 23025’s broad definition of a sale shows the Legislature intended the law to cover a wide range of transactions involving alcoholic beverages: a qualifying sale includes “any transaction” in which title to an alcoholic beverage is passed for “anyconsideration.” (Italics added.) Use of the term “any” to modify the words “transaction” and “consideration” demonstrates the Legislature intended the law to have a broad sweep and thus include both indirect as well as direct transactions. (See Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 533 [120 Cal.Rptr.3d 531, 246 P.3d 612] [Legislature’s use of the word “any” suggests it intended a broad construction]; Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 920 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, 911 P.2d 496] [same].)

(10) Contrary to the foregoing, defendant urges us to embrace the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, which found no sale because “there [was] no transfer of title to an alcoholic beverage at the time the entrance fee [was] paid,” and that “it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine which individual or individuals held title to the alcoholic beverages consumed by Garcia.” But the definition of a sale under section 23025 is broad enough to encompass indirect sales; the statute requires simply a transfer of title, not necessarily a transfer of possession of a particular drink. This conclusion follows from both the statutory definition of a sale to include “any” transaction, as well as the Legislature’s 1937 amendment to section 23025 to clarify its meaning. The715*715 original version of what is now section 23025 was an uncodified precursor to the ABC Act and provided: “The transfer of title to alcoholic beverages unaccompanied by a transfer of possession of such beverages shall not be deemed a sale of such beverages.” (Stats. 1935, ch. 330, § 2, pp. 1123, 1124-1125.) The Legislature deleted that sentence in 1937, thereby broadening the definition of sale to encompass those situations in which an immediate transfer of possession does not occur. (Stats. 1937, ch. 758, § 3, pp. 2127, 2129.) “`We presume the Legislature intends to change the meaning of a law when it alters the statutory language [citation], as for example when it deletes express provisions of the prior version….'” (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 230, 244 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 171, 186 P.3d 535].)

Nor is it difficult to discern when title to a drink passed to Garcia. Although his payment of the admission fee did not entitle him to, say, take possession of all the alcohol at the party, nor did he at that time necessarily take title to any particular drink, when Garcia did pour himself a drink and begin to consume it, title to that drink clearly passed to him. We conclude the plain meaning of a “sale,” as defined in section 23025 and used in section 25602.1, includes Garcia’s payment of the entrance fee for Manosa’s party, irrespective of the fact possession of a particular drink did not occur immediately upon payment.

(11) Defendant further argues the statutory definition of “sale” in section 23025 is ambiguous because in other contexts the Legislature has specifically provided that a sale includes both direct and indirect sales. She cites two examples from the code: Section 24070, subdivision (c) restricts a corporate licensee from selling “a controlling interest in the stock ownership of the licensee” either “directly or indirectly,… for a period of two years from date of issuance of the license….” (Italics added.) Similarly, section 25511 provides in part that a beer manufacturer or beer wholesaler “may … sell, directly or indirectly, any equipment, fixtures, or supplies, other than alcoholic beverages, to a retailer whose equipment, fixtures, or supplies were lost or damaged as a result of a natural disaster.” (Italics added.) Neither statute is relevant to the issue before us. Section 24070, subdivision (c) addresses the sale of stock ownership, not alcoholic beverages. Section 25511 addresses the sale of “equipment, fixtures, or supplies, other than alcoholic beverages.” (Italics added.) By contrast, section 23025 defines the terms “sell,” “sale” and “to sell” in the specific context of the conveyance of alcoholic beverages, and the Legislature’s use of the term “any” to modify the nouns “transaction” and “consideration” is another way of including indirect sales within the scope of the definition. Accordingly, the use of the phrase “directly or indirectly” in sections 24070 and 25511 does not render ambiguous section 23025’s expansive definition of a sale of alcoholic beverages.

716*716 Although the parties have cited no previous California appellate decision addressing whether the collection of what is, in essence, a cover charge constitutes a sale of alcohol under the ABC Act, nor has our research revealed any, our decision that Manosa sold alcohol is consistent with section 25604. Section 25604 provides in part: “It is a public nuisance for any person to keep, maintain, operate or lease any premises for the purpose of providing therein for a consideration a place for the drinking of alcoholic beverages by members of the public or other persons, unless the person and premises are licensed under this division. As used herein `consideration’ includes cover charge, the sale of food, ice, mixers or other liquids used with alcoholic beverage drinks, or the furnishing of glassware or other containers for use in the consumption of alcoholic beverage drinks.” (Italics added.) To conclude that “consideration” for a drink (and hence a sale) includes a cover charge for purposes of section 25604, but not for section 25602.1, would make little sense. Certainly defendant cites no evidence the Legislature intended such an idiosyncratic definition of the term “sale.”

Our conclusion that the pleaded facts suggest a sale occurred within the meaning of section 25602.1 is consistent with an opinion prepared by the Office of the Attorney General.^[14] (See 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 263 (1985) (AG Opinion).) The director of the Department of ABC, who is charged with enforcing the ABC Act (see § 23050 et seq.), had asked this question of the Office of the Attorney General: “May the operator of a commercial enterprise who does not have an alcoholic beverage license legally offer and provide `complimentary’ alcoholic beverages to any interested adult guest, customer or passenger of the business or service, without specific charge while at the same time charging for the product provided or the services rendered?” (AG Opinion, supra, 263.) Focusing its inquiry on whether the complimentary beverages were in fact free, and not whether, strictly speaking, title to a particular drink had passed from seller to buyer, the Attorney General concluded that offering a complimentary drink, while at the same time charging for another related service or product, constituted a sale under section 23025. (AG Opinion,supra, 263.) While the AG Opinion concerned an “operator of a commercial enterprise” and not an ostensible social host, the Attorney General’s reasoning is pertinent here because he framed the issue as “whether the `complimentary’ beverages are in fact `free’ or whether they are 717*717 in reality purveyed for a `consideration.'” (Id. at p. 265.) In other words, did a sale of alcoholic beverages occur?

Observing that no California cases on the subject existed, the Attorney General examined three out-of-state cases. In New York State Liquor Authority v. Fuffy’s Pancake House, Ltd. (N.Y.App.Div. 1978) 65 A.D.2d 556 [409 N.Y.S.2d 20], a restaurant provided complimentary glasses of wine when a patron paid for a meal. InNew York State Liquor Authority v. Sutton Social Club (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1978) 93 Misc.2d 1024 [403 N.Y.S.2d 443], a social club charged its members and their guests a fee that entitled them to enter the club and to obtain “free” alcoholic beverages. Finally, in Commonwealth v. Worcestrr (1879) 126 Mass. 256, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts addressed a case involving a dwelling house that charged for meals that included free alcoholic beverages. The decisions in all three cases concluded a sale of alcoholic beverages had occurred.

In light of this sister state authority, the Attorney General concluded that when consideration for an alcoholic beverage is included in the basic charge for another item or service (such as a meal, admission to an event, hotel room rental, or limousine rental charge), “`[i]t is wholly immaterial that no specific price is attached to those articles separately.’ Therefore, the furnishing of the beverages, although denominated `complimentary,’ are for a consideration and constitute a sale within the meaning of California’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.” (AG Opinion, supra, 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., at p. 267, italics added.) Under this reasoning, Manosa’s act of charging guests a fee in exchange for entrance to her party and access to the alcoholic beverages she provided constitutes a sale under sections 23025 and 25602.1 because the beverages were purveyed for consideration and therefore not free.

Were further support needed, we observe that our interpretation of a sale for purposes of the ABC Act in general, and section 25602.1 in particular, is consistent with that of the Department of ABC. The department, appearing at our invitation as amicus curiae, opines that “a sale may occur whether the payment for alcohol is made at a bar upon delivery of the alcohol, or at the door as the price of admission to the premises where alcohol is served.” (Italics added.) The department’s view, as expressed in its amicus curiae brief, is consistent with its own internal guidelines, as expressed in a November 2009 trade enforcement information guide (TEIG), which served as an industry reference and enforcement guide for the ABC Act.^[15] In a 718*718subsection entitled “Private Parties,” addressing licensure requirements related to private parties where alcohol is served, the TEIG notes that section 23399.1, specifying exemptions from the requirement of a liquor license, does not require a license if, among other factors, “there is no sale of an alcoholic beverage” at the party. (TEIG, supra, at pp. 21-22, capitalization altered.) But the TEIG then cautions: “Be aware that the definition of `sale’ includes indirect transactions other than merely paying for a glass of wine or other drink containing alcohol. For instance, if an admission fee is charged … and the alcohol is included, but not separately charged, an ABC license is required.” (Id. at p. 22, original underscoring, italics added.) The TEIG thus supports the conclusion that under the ABC Act a sale includes indirect transactions such as occurred at Manosa’s party. While the TEIG itself is not entitled to judicial deference,^[16] that it is consistent with the meaning of “sale” urged by the department in its amicus curiae brief is significant, as the department has considerable expertise in enforcing the ABC Act. (See Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1523 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 621] [“As a rule, it is appropriate for courts to accept the administrative expertise of the Department….”].)

Thus, according to the plain meaning of section 23025 defining a sale, the opinion of the Attorney General, and the interpretation of the Department of ABC, a “sale” of alcoholic beverages under section 25602.1 includes the type of transactions that occurred at defendant Manosa’s party. Because she sold Garcia alcoholic beverages at her party, section 25602.1 permits “a cause of action [to] be brought [against her] by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death.”

Defendant’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. She contends primarily that the definitions of the terms “sell,” “sale,” and “to sell” in section 23025 (hereafter “sale”) necessarily imply a transaction that results in a commercial gain or profit for the seller. Observing that the statutory definition in section 23025 applies “[u]nless the context otherwise requires,” she argues the context of section 25602.1’s exception to the general rule of civil immunity requires we recognize a commercial gain component for the term “sale” so as 719*719 to avoid rendering the term “furnish,” used earlier in the same statute, mere surplusage. “Courts should give meaning to every word of a statute if possible, and should avoid a construction making any word surplusage.” (Arnett v. Dal Cielo (1996) 14 Cal.4th 4, 22 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 706, 923 P.2d 1]; see California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 634 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 927 P.2d 1175] [same].) Placement of the definition of a “sale” in the Business and Professions Code instead of the Civil Code, she further contends, suggests that, in context, the definition contemplates a transaction of a business or commercial nature. (See Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, 327 & fn. 6 [86 Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 197 P.3d 164] [that Good Samaritan immunity statute was placed in the Health & Saf. Code rather than the Civ. Code suggests it applied to emergency medical care only].)^[17]

We decline to read a financial profit or commercial gain requirement into the phrase “sells, or causes to be sold,” as used in section 25602.1. First, when construing section 25602.1, no reason appears to refrain from employing the definition of “sale” set forth in section 23025, and that statutory definition — “any transaction” for “anyconsideration” (italics added) — does not specify that some profit or gain must be made or intended. “`Where the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.'” (In re Jennings, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 265.) “[W]e must be careful not to add requirements to those already supplied by the Legislature.” (Ibid.; see Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 998 [275 Cal.Rptr. 201, 800 P.2d 557] [it is a “cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes”].) We note the Department of ABC, the state agency tasked with interpreting and implementing the ABC Act, agrees that “[n]either profit nor intent to realize a profit is necessary for a sale to occur” under section 23025’s definition of a sale, and that “[c]onsideration which is equal to or less than the seller’s cost is still good consideration, as long as it represents some benefit to the seller or some prejudice to the buyer. (Civil Code, § 1605.)^[18] The buyer’s purchase price, however the seller intends to use it, is good consideration.”

Second, contrary to defendant’s argument, our rejection of a commercial gain component does not convert section 25602.1’s use of the term “furnish[]” — in the statutory phrase permitting liability for licensees who “s[ell], 720*720 furnish[] or give[] away” alcoholic beverages — into meaningless surplusage. A sale requires consideration; mere furnishing does not.

Third, in permitting potential liability for the provision of alcohol to obviously intoxicated minors in section 25602.1, the Legislature distinguished between licensees — presumably business or commercial entities such as bars and restaurants — and “any other person” — presumably including noncommercial entities or individuals such as Manosa. This version of section 25602.1, amended to its current form in 1986, was partly enacted in response to Cory v. Shierloh, supra,29 Cal.3d 430, which had found a social host immune from liability for injuries to a minor allegedly injured after he became intoxicated at a private party. From this we may infer the Legislature was aware of, and attempted to address, the problem of providing alcohol to minors in social settings in which no profit was expected.

Defendant raises additional counterarguments to our interpretation of the word “sale” but they are even less persuasive. She first contends we should not apply section 23025’s definition of a sale here because it will lead to “illogical results” and create an unworkable standard in the context of social parties. Observing that consideration for a sale need not be in cash, but may encompass “any value whatever” (Estate of Freeman (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 486, 489 [48 Cal.Rptr. 1]; see generally Civ. Code, § 1605), defendant hypothesizes that a promise to attend a friend’s party or to bring a dessert to a social gathering where the host provides alcoholic beverages would constitute a sale under a broad reading of section 23025.

Defendant’s hypothetical poses a false equivalency. In the usual social situation, the dessert or other gift brought by an invited guest and given to the host cannot fairly be characterized as a transaction in which consideration is given in exchange for alcoholic beverages provided by the host; the dessert or other offering is simply a commonplace gift consistent with ordinary etiquette. (See § 23025 [definition of a sale requires a “transaction”].) We need not sweep all informal potlucks into the jurisdiction of the Department of ABC’s licensure purview to conclude the instant situation, in which Manosa operated what was in essence a popup nightclub that required a cover charge for entry, falls within section 23025’s definition of a sale of alcohol. The Department of ABC agrees, explaining that “situations involving casual reimbursement among friends who have agreed to purchase alcohol together rarely, if ever, arise for the Department, and the Department does not make a practice of intruding into clearly private parties to assess the casual pooling of money among friends to buy alcohol. On the other hand, circumstances in which alcohol is clearly being transferred in return for a purchase price, and the only defense to licensure is either that the alcohol is priced at cost or that a fee is charged for the privilege of entering [the] premises and consuming alcohol there, present clear cases of salesrequiring a license.” (Italics added.)

721*721 As to defendant’s further contention that the standard we recognize today will prove “unworkable,” we observe the Department of ABC, the agency responsible for enforcing the law with respect to the many ways in which alcoholic beverages can be distributed, expresses no concern the standard we now recognize is “unworkable”; indeed, our definition of a sale is consistent with both the plain meaning of section 23025 and the department’s own view of the law. We agree with the department’s further assertion that, faced with normal social gatherings, to interpret the statutory language strictly, leading to absurd results not contemplated by the Legislature, would be unjustified.

Noting that alcohol is “furnished at an infinite variety of social settings hosted by nonlicensees — from gallery openings, bar mitzvahs, weddings, political fundraisers and charity events — where admission is not `free’ and financial contributions from attendees are expected or required,” defendant argues by a reductio ad absurdumthat this court would wreak havoc on the “social fabric of modern life” were we to recognize indirect transactions could qualify as sales of alcohol under section 23025. The assertion is exaggerated. One does not normally charge guests an entrance fee to attend bar mitzvahs, weddings, or gallery openings, and the provision of alcoholic beverages to guests invited to such events typically is governed by social host immunity under Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (c). (Even if a host at such an event charged his or her guests for alcohol, such payment would simply raise questions of licensure, and civil liability could attach only if the host sold alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.) In any event, in contrast to how Manosa conducted herself at her party, ordinary social hosts do not use bouncers, allow uninvited strangers into their homes, or extract an entrance fee or cover charge from their guests. Nor does maintaining the social fabric of our society depend on protecting from civil liability those persons who would sell alcoholic beverages to minors who are already visibly intoxicated.

Defendant further argues that our interpretation of section 25602.1 will yield irrational results because some guests will pay but not drink, some will drink an alcoholic beverage provided by someone other than the host, and some will enter the party without being charged. To have liability turn on such facts, defendant argues, is absurd. (See In re J. W. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 200, 210 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, 57 P.3d 363] [“courts will not give statutory language a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences…”].) We disagree. If a paying guest does not drink, there can be no liability, because section 25602.1 requires that the sale of alcohol be the proximate cause of the injury. If the guest drinks a beverage provided by someone other than the host, the same result obtains because the host’s sale of alcohol cannot be said to have been the cause of the minor’s intoxication and hence the injury. Finally, for guests who pay no admission charge the host retains her immunity, because without consideration there can be no sale 722*722 under section 23025. The final category of section 25602.1, permitting liability for “any other person who sells,” requires proof of a sale (that is, a transaction for consideration), and is not irrational for distinguishing between paying and nonpaying partygoers. In any event, a social host can retain her immunity by simply refraining from charging any of her invited guests.

In sum, we conclude that if, as indicated by plaintiff’s evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion, defendant Manosa charged an entrance fee to her party which enabled party guests to drink the alcoholic beverages she provided, she sold such beverages (or caused them to be sold) within the meaning of section 23025, and can be liable for Ennabe’s death under 25602.1’s exception to immunity for persons who sell alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated minors.

III. CONCLUSION

(12) Where injuries are proximately caused by excess alcohol consumption, our Legislature has carefully balanced the interests involved and settled on a rule generally precluding liability for those who provide alcoholic beverages, on the ground that “the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages [is] the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.” (§ 25602, subd. (c).) Specifically addressing the potential liability of social hosts, the Legislature has provided that “no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (c).)

But the Legislature has also established some narrow exceptions to this broad civil immunity, one of which is potentially applicable here: liability may attach because plaintiff alleges facts suggesting that defendant Manosa was a “person who [sold], or cause[d] to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor.” (§ 25602.1.) A “sale” of alcohol, in turn, is defined as “any transaction” for “any consideration.” (§ 23025.) Because the facts, read in a light most favorable to plaintiffs (Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 764), support the conclusion Manosa is a person who sold alcoholic beverages to Garcia, a minor who was obviously intoxicated, and Garcia’s intoxication was the proximate cause of Andrew Ennabe’s death, she is potentially liable under section 25602.1, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

723*723 The decision of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., and Liu, J., concurred.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise specified.

[2] Plaintiffs do not challenge the lower court’s ruling in favor of codefendants Carlos and Mary Manosa, Jessica’s parents. Accordingly, we refer to defendant Jessica Manosa only.

[3] We will use the abbreviation “ABC” as a shorthand for “Alcoholic Beverage Control.” Hence, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is referred to as “the Department of ABC” and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (§ 23000 et seq.) is referred to as “the ABC Act.”

[4] The summary judgment record is unclear who purchased this additional alcohol and whether Manosa had personally asked someone to use the gate money to buy more alcohol. The parties assert it is undisputed that Mario Aparicio and Stephan Filaos bought the additional alcohol, although Aparicio denies doing so. One guest, Hani Abuershaid, overheard Filaos say Manosa had asked him to purchase more alcohol using the money collected at the door, “because I think no one else had regulation of the money besides the bouncer and [Manosa].” Abuershaid also testified to seeing the bouncer give Filaos the money. Further, decedent Andrew Ennabe’s brother declared he had heard Manosa ask Aparicio and Filaos to use money collected at the door to purchase additional alcohol.

[5] Garcia was convicted of a felony in connection with Ennabe’s death and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

[6] Prior to 1978, section 25602 provided: “Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (Stats. 1953, ch. 152, § 1, pp. 954, 1020.) The same language now appears in subdivision (a) of the same statute. (Stats. 1978, ch. 929, § 1, pp. 2903-2904.)

[7] As added by the 1978 amendments, the original version of section 25602.1 stated: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 25602, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death against any person licensed pursuant to Section 23300 who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage to any obviously intoxicated minor where the furnishing, sale or giving of such beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained by such person.” (Stats. 1978, ch. 930, § 1, p. 2905.)

[8] Accordingly under section 25602.1 as enacted in 1978, “whether or not the selling or supplying of the liquor is a tortious cause of a resultant injury turns on the license status of the supplier and the ageof the consumer. Causation in a common law sense, whether actual or physical, proximate or legal, has never pivoted on such a perilous and seemingly irrelevant fulcrum.” (Cory v. Shierloh, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 440.)

[9] We grant defendant’s request for judicial notice of the legislative history of the 1986 amendments to section 25602.1. (In re Reeves (2005) 35 Cal.4th 765, 777, fn. 15 [28 Cal.Rptr.3d 4, 110 P.3d 1218]; Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 929, fn. 10 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 102 P.3d 915].)

[10] Section 25602.1, as amended in 1986, provides in full: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 25602, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death against any person licensed, or required to be licensed, pursuant to Section 23300, or any person authorized by the federal government to sell alcoholic beverages on a military base or other federal enclave, who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given away any alcoholic beverage, and any other person who sells, or causes to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor where the furnishing, sale or giving of that beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained by that person.” (Italics added.)

[11] That is, he was under 21 years of age. (See Chalup v. Aspen Mine Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 973, 975, fn. 2 [221 Cal.Rptr. 97] [for purposes of § 25602.1, “`minor’ refers to persons under the age of 21”]; Rogers v. Alvas, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 1004 [same].)

[12] Since 2007, the statute has been amended twice. In 2010, the Legislature added former subdivision (d) to Civil Code section 1714: “Nothing in subdivision (c) shall preclude a claim against a parent, guardian, or another adult who knowingly furnishes alcoholic beverages at his or her residence to a person under 21 years of age, in which case, notwithstanding subdivision (b), the furnishing of the alcoholic beverage may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuries or death.” (Stats. 2010, ch. 154, § 1.)

A year later, the Legislature moved former subdivision (d) to subdivision (d)(1) and added what is now Civil Code section 1714, subdivision (d)(2): “A claim under this subdivision may be brought by, or on behalf of, the person under 21 years of age or by a person who was harmed by the person under 21 years of age.” (See Stats. 2011, ch. 410, § 1.) The same amendment also added that liability under section 1714, subdivision (d) would attach if a person knew, or should have known, that the person served was under 21.

[13] The two categories are not precisely congruent, as an extremely small group of purveyors of alcohol are allowed under the code to operate without a license. Thus, under section 23102, subdivision (a), a person acting on behalf of a deceased, insolvent or incompetent licensee can sell alcoholic beverages for 30 days without a license. In addition, section 23399.5 permits limousine and hot air balloon operators to serve alcoholic beverages without a license so long as they do not charge extra for alcohol, although the Legislature enacted this provision in 1986 so it could not have had such operators in mind when it enacted section 25602.1 in 1978.

[14] As we have explained, “`[a]bsent controlling authority, [the Attorney General’s opinion] is persuasive because we presume that the Legislature was cognizant of the Attorney General’s construction of [the statute] and would have taken corrective action if it disagreed with that construction.'” (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 1013 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 987 P.2d 705].) “Attorney General opinions are entitled to considerable weight.” (Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1087, fn. 17 [103 Cal.Rptr.3d 767, 222 P.3d 214]; see California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 17 [270 Cal.Rptr. 796, 793 P.2d 2] [“`Opinions of the Attorney General, while not binding, are entitled to great weight.'”].)

[15] Although both parties discuss the TEIG and debate its usefulness, it apparently was never reduced to hardcopy and existed as an online resource only. The TEIG no longer appears on the department’s Web site, but can be found at: (as of Feb. 24, 2014).

[16] Although the TEIG itself cannot be enforced and is not binding legal authority because, as the parties acknowledge, it was not promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.), we can consider the Department of ABC’s interpretation of the law to the extent it is persuasive. (See Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 576-577 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 186, 927 P.2d 296] [holding that while we do not defer to the Department of Labor Standard Enforcement’s interpretation of Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, “we do not necessarily reject its decision …” either]; see also Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 563 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 169 P.3d 889] [court may adopt a “statutory interpretation embodied in a void regulation if the court independently determines that the interpretation is correct”].)

[17] The holding in this case was superseded by an amendment to Health and Safety Code section 1799.102. (Stats. 2009, ch. 77, § 1.)

[18] Civil Code section 1605 states: “Any benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred, upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered, or agreed to be suffered, by such person, other than such as he is at the time of consent lawfully bound to suffer, as an inducement to the promisor, is a good consideration for a promise.”

Keywords: Negligence, Premise Liability

Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

59 Cal.4th 568 (2014)

Summary by Mary M. Howell, Esq.:

Principal architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of a residential building, even when the architects do not actually build the project or exercise ultimate control over construction.

*** End Summary ***

570*570 Law Offices of Ann Rankin, Ann Rankin, Terry L. Wilkens; Katzoff & Riggs, Kenneth S. Katzoff, Robert R. Riggs, Sung E. Shim and Stephen G. Preonas for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Berding & Weil and Matt J. Malone for Consumer Attorneys of California and Executive Council of Homeowners as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Horvitz & Levy, Peder K. Batalden and Peter Abrahams for Defendants and Respondents Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP and HKS, Inc.

Robles, Castles & Meredith and Richard C. Young for Defendant and Respondent Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP.

Schwartz & Janzen, Noel E. Macaulay and Steven H. Schwartz for Defendant and Respondent HKS, Inc.

Fred J. Hiestand for the Civil Justice Association of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Shannon B. Jones Law Group, Kathleen F. Carpenter, Jessica M. Takano and Amy R. Gowan for California Building Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Collins Collins Muir + Stewart, David E. Barker and Melinda W. Ebelhar for The American Institute of Architects California Council and The American Institute of Architects as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

571*571 OPINION

LIU, J. —

A homeowners association on behalf of its members sued a condominium developer and various other parties over construction design defects that allegedly make the homes unsafe and uninhabitable for significant portions of the year. Two defendants were architectural firms, which allegedly designed the homes in a negligent manner but did not make the final decisions regarding how the homes would be built. Applying our decision in Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745] (Bily) and relying on Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co., Inc. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 152 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 660] (Weseloh), the trial court sustained a demurrer in favor of defendant architectural firms, reasoning that an architect who makes recommendations but not final decisions on construction owes no duty of care to future homeowners with whom it has no contractual relationship. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that an architect owes a duty of care to homeowners in these circumstances, both under the common law and under the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code, § 895 et seq.).

Building on substantial case law and the common law principles on which it is based, we hold that an architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of a residential building where, as here, the architect is a principal architect on the project — that is, the architect, in providing professional design services, is not subordinate to other design professionals. The duty of care extends to such architects even when they do not actually build the project or exercise ultimate control over construction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

In considering whether a demurrer should have been sustained, “we accept as true the well-pleaded facts in the operative complaint….” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1189, fn. 1 [151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827, 292 P.3d 871].) The facts alleged in plaintiffs’ third amended complaint (the complaint) are as follows.

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) and HKS, Inc. (individually and doing business as HKS Architects, Inc.; hereafter HKS), are design professionals. SOM and HKS (collectively defendants) provided architectural and engineering services for The Beacon residential condominiums, a collection of 595 condominium units and associated common areas located in San Francisco (the Project). Although the units were initially rented out for two years after construction, defendants provided their services knowing that the finished construction would be sold as condominiums. A condominium 572*572 association was formed, and the condominium’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions were recorded, before construction commenced.

The homeowners association, plaintiff Beacon Residential Community Association (Association), sued several parties involved in the construction of those condominiums, including several business entities designated as the original owners and developers of the condominium, as well as SOM and HKS, with whom the owners and developers contracted for architectural services. SOM and HKS were the only architects on the Project. Plaintiff alleged that negligent architectural design work performed by defendants resulted in several defects, including extensive water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other safety hazards. One of the principal defects is “solar heat gain,” which made the condominium units uninhabitable and unsafe during certain periods due to high temperatures. Plaintiff alleged that the solar heat gain is due to defendants’ approval, contrary to state and local building codes, of less expensive, substandard windows and a building design that lacked adequate ventilation. Defendants are named in the first cause of action (“Civil Code Title 7 — Violation of Statutory Building Standards for Original Construction”), the second cause of action (“Negligence Per Se in Violation of Statute”), and the fifth cause of action (“Negligence of Design Professionals and Contractors”).

According to the complaint, defendants “provided architectural and engineering services” for the Project that “included, but were not limited to, architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, structural engineering, soils engineering and electrical engineering, as well as construction administration and construction contract management.” Defendants were paid more than $5 million for their work on the Project. In addition to “providing original design services at the outset”, of the Project, defendants played an active role throughout the construction process, coordinating efforts of the design and construction teams, conducting weekly site visits and inspections, recommending design revisions as needed, and monitoring compliance with design plans.

Defendants demurred, contending they owed no duty of care to the Association or its members under the facts alleged. The trial court agreed: “The allegations do not show that either of the architects went beyond the typical role of an architect, which is to make recommendations to the owner. Even if the architect initiated the substitutions, changes, and other elements of design that Plaintiff alleges to be the cause of serious defects, so long as the final decision rested with the owner, there is no duty owed by the architect to the future condominium owners, in the Court’s view. The owner made the final decision according to the third amended complaint.” The trial court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to allege that defendants 573*573″actually dictated and controlled the decision to eliminate [ventilation] ducts, acting in a manner that was contrary to the directions of the owner, or that ignored the owner’s directions,” but plaintiff declined.

The Court of Appeal reversed. It applied the factors set forth by this court in Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [320 P.2d 16] (Biakanja) for determining whether a party owes a duty of care to a third party and concluded that the defendants owed a duty of care to the Association in this case. The court distinguished Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 152, a case that found no duty of care owed by a design engineer to a commercial property owner, on the grounds that Weseloh was decided on summary judgment rather than demurrer and that Weseloh had expressly limited its holding to its facts. The Court of Appeal further concluded that Bily, supra, 3Cal.4th 370, did not support defendants’ position. Finally, the court concluded that the Right to Repair Act expressed a legislative intent to impose on design professionals a duty of care to future homeowners. (See Civ. Code, § 895 et seq.)

We granted review.

II.

(1) “Actionable negligence involves a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 594 [83 Cal.Rptr. 418, 463 P.2d 770].) This case is concerned solely with the first element of negligence, the duty of care. Whether a duty of care exists “in a particular case is a question of law to be resolved by the court. [Citation.] [¶] A judicial conclusion that a duty is present or absent is merely `”a shorthand statement … rather than an aid to analysis …. `[D]uty,’ is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.”‘ [Citation.] `Courts, however, have invoked the concept of duty to limit generally “the otherwise potentially infinite liability which would follow from every negligent act….”‘” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 397.)

Here we consider whether design professionals owe a duty of care to a homeowners association and its members in the absence of privity. Although the issue presented in this case has not been decided by this court, we do not write on a blank slate. As explained below, courts have found in a variety of circumstances that builders, contractors, and architects owe a duty of care to third parties.

574*574 A.

(2) Although liability for the supply of goods and services historically required privity of contract between the supplier and the injured party, the significance of privity has been greatly eroded over the past century. As we noted more than 50 years ago, “[l]iability has been imposed, in the absence of privity, upon suppliers of goods and services which, if negligently made or rendered, are `reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril.’ [Citations.] There is also authority for the imposition of liability where there is no privity and where the only foreseeable risk is of damage to tangible property. [Citations.]” (Biakanja, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 649.) In Biakanja, we held that a notary public who negligently drafted a will was liable to the intended beneficiary of the will. (Id. at pp. 650-651.) We explained that “[t]he determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm.” (Id. at p. 650.)

The declining significance of privity has found its way into construction law. We described the evolution in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 12 P.3d 1125] (Aas): “Formerly, after a builder had completed a structure and the purchaser had accepted it, the builder was not liable to a third party for damages suffered because of the work’s condition, even though the builder was negligent. (E.g., Fanjoy v. Seales (1865) 29 Cal. 243, 249-250; see also Hale v. Depaoli [(1948)] 33 Cal.2d 228, 230 [201 P.2d 1] [reviewing the former law].) The purchaser, of course, had remedies against the builder in contract and warranty. But injured third parties had no clear remedy until we, following the trend that began withMacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) 217 N.Y 382 [111 N.E. 1050], qualified the general rule exonerating manufacturers from third party claims with an exception applicable whenever `”the nature of a [manufactured] thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made….”‘ (Kalash v. Los Angeles Ladder Co. (1934) 1 Cal.2d 229, 231-232 [34 P.2d 481], quotingMacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., supra, 111 N.E. 1050, 1053.) Having already held that the manufacturers of defective ladders [citation], elevators [citation], and tires [citation] could be liable to persons not in contractual privity with them yet foreseeably injured by their products, we easily applied the same rule to someone responsible for part of a house, i.e., a defective railing (Hale v. Depaoli, at pp. 230-232).

575*575 “We first recognized a remedy in the law of negligence for construction defects causing property damage, as opposed to personal injury, in Stewart v. Cox [(1961)] 55 Cal.2d 857 [13 Cal.Rptr. 521, 362 P.2d 345]. There, we upheld a homeowner’s judgment against a subcontractor who had negligently applied concrete to the inside of a swimming pool, thereby causing the release of water that damaged the pool, lot and house. In our opinion we noted, and seemingly were influenced by, the `”decisions … plac[ing] building contractors on the same footing as sellers of goods, and … [holding] them to the general standard of reasonable care for the protection of anyone who may foreseeably be endangered by the negligence, even after acceptance of the work.”‘ (Id. at p. 862, quoting Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955) pp. 517-519.)” (Aas, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 637.)

The court in Stewart applied the Biakanja factors to determine the scope of the duty of care: “Here it was obvious that the pool for which Cox provided the gunite work was intended for the plaintiffs and that property damage to them — and possibly to some of their neighbors — was foreseeable in the event the work was so negligently done as to permit water to escape. It is clear that the transaction between [the pool subcontractor] and Cox was intended to specially affect plaintiffs. There is no doubt that plaintiffs suffered serious damage, and the court found, supported by ample evidence, that the injury was caused by Cox’s negligence. Under all the circumstances Cox should not be exempted from liability if negligence on his part was the proximate cause of the damage to plaintiffs.” (Stewart v. Cox, supra, 55 Cal.2d at p. 863 (Stewart).)

Soon after, in Sabella v. Wisler (1963) 59 Cal.2d 21 [27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889], we held that a contractor was liable to a homeowner, although the homeowner’s identity was unknown at the time of construction. The contractor had built a house on inadequately compacted soil, causing major subsidence and property damage. Applying the Biakanja factors, we said that although “it appears that… this house was not constructed with the intention of ownership passing to these particular plaintiffs, the Sabellas are members of the class of prospective home buyers for which Wisler admittedly built the dwelling. Thus as a matter of legal effect the home may be considered to have been intended for the plaintiffs, and Wisler owed them a duty of care in construction. (See Prosser, Torts (2d ed. 1955) § 36, pp. 166-168.) It is apparent that harm was foreseeable to prospective owners when the home was constructed upon the inadequately compacted earth in the lot, and it is undisputed that the Sabellas’ home was seriously damaged. Also, there was found to be a close connection between the negligent elements of workmanship for which defendant contractor must be held responsible … and the injury suffered.” (Sabella, at p. 28.)

576*576 Courts have applied these third party liability principles to architects. In Montijo v. Swift (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 351 [33 Cal.Rptr. 133], the plaintiff sued an architect after falling and injuring herself on a stairway at a bus depot that she alleged had been negligently designed with an inadequate handrail. Relying in part on Stewart, supra, 55 Cal.2d 857, and Hale v. Depaoli, supra, 33 Cal.3d 228, the court said: “Under the existing status of the law, an architect who plans and supervises construction work, as an independent contractor, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the course thereof for the protection of any person who foreseeably and with reasonable certainty may be injured by his failure to do so, even though such injury may occur after his work has been accepted by the person engaging his services.” (Montijo, at p. 353.) Similarly, in Mallow v. Tucker, Sadler & Bennett, Architects etc., Inc. (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 700 [54 Cal.Rptr. 174], the court upheld an architect’s liability to a construction worker where the architect’s plans negligently failed to indicate the location of underground high-voltage transmission lines, resulting in the worker’s electrocution. (Id. at pp. 702-703.)

Architect liability to third parties has not been confined to personal injury; it also extends to property damage. The Court of Appeal in Cooper v. Jevne (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 860 [128 Cal.Rptr. 724], perhaps the case most similar to the one before us, recognized such liability to condominium purchasers where an architectural firm “prepared and furnished to the builder-seller … architectural drawings and plans and specifications for the construction and other improvements within the … project and acted as supervising architects in the construction of the buildings within the project.” (Id. at p. 867.) Applying the Biakanja factors, Cooper held on demurrer that “the architects’ duty of reasonable care in the performance of their professional services is logically owed to those who purchased the allegedly defectively designed and built condominiums…. The architects must have known that the condominiums they designed and whose construction they supervised were built by [the builder-seller] for sale to the public and that purchasers of these condominiums would be the ones who would suffer economically, if not bodily, from any negligence by the architects in the performance of their professional services.” (Id. at p. 869.)

Similarly, in Huang v. Garner (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 404 [203 Cal.Rptr. 800], the Court of Appeal overturned a nonsuit in an action by a property owner against a building designer and civil engineer for defective design, including insufficient fire retardation walls, that violated building code standards. (Id. at pp. 411-415.) The court took as a given that design professionals could be held liable to third parties for defective designs causing property damage and economic loss; the only issue was whether negligence had to be proven by expert testimony or could be established by showing departure from then Uniform Building Code requirements as negligence per se. (Huang, 577*577 at pp. 411-414.) In Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 278 [136 Cal.Rptr. 603], the court said it is “now well settled that … the architect may be sued for negligence in the preparations of plans and specifications either by his client or by third persons….” (Id. at p. 299.)

B.

(3) The Association argues that the general principle that an architect may be sued in negligence by a future homeowner absent privity is also recognized by statute. The Right to Repair Act establishes a set of building standards for new residential construction and provides that builders and other entities “shall … be liable for” violation of those standards “[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of” such construction. (Civ. Code, § 896; see id., § 936; all undesignated subsequent statutory references are to this code.) Section 896 states that the deficiencies for which builders and other entities are liable include “the residential construction, design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction” of a dwelling unit. The Association points to section 936, which provides in part: “Each and every provision of the other chapters of this title apply to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract. In addition to the affirmative defenses set forth in Section 945.5, a general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, design professional, individual product manufacturer, or other entity may also offer common law and contractual defenses as applicable to any claimed violation of a standard.” (Italics added.) Section 937 makes clear that the term “design professionals” includes “architects and architectural firms.”

The Court of Appeal, relying on legislative history, concluded that the Right to Repair Act is “dispositive of the scope of duty” owed by defendants to the homeowners in this case. Defendants make several arguments against this position. First, they observe that whereas the act applies to “new residential units,” the residential units in the Project were initially rented as apartments. Second, defendants contend that even if the Right to Repair Act applies to this case, it does not support imposing a duty of care toward the Association’s members greater than the duty imposed at common law. Highlighting the portion of section 936 that preserves “common law … defenses,” defendants argue that under common law principles of duty articulated by this court, a design professional owes no duty of care to homeowners in the circumstances of this case. Defendants further rely on the established principle that “`”[a] statute will be construed in light of common 578*578 law decisions, unless its language `”clearly and unequivocally discloses an intention to depart from, alter, or abrogate the common-law rule concerning a particular subject matter….”‘”‘” (California Assn. of Health Facilities v. Department of Health Services (1997) 16Cal.4th 284, 297 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 872, 940 P.2d 323].) According to defendants, the Legislature’s limited purpose in enacting the Right to Repair Act in 2002 was to abrogate the “economic loss rule” affirmed in Aas, supra, 24 Cal.4th 627, 636 (seeGreystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, 1202 [86 Cal.Rptr.3d 196] (Greystone)), not to otherwise create new tort duties.

We need not decide whether the Right to Repair Act is itself dispositive of the issue before us. Assuming defendants are correct that the existence of a common law duty of care is required to maintain a negligence action under the statute, such a duty exists under the facts alleged here. This conclusion follows from an application ofBiakanja and Bily, as we now explain.

III.

As noted, Biakanja set forth a list of factors that inform whether a duty of care exists between a plaintiff and a defendant in the absence of privity: “the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm.” (Biakanja, supra,49 Cal.2d at p. 650.) Although the application of these factors necessarily depends on the circumstances of each case, it is possible to derive general rules that govern common scenarios. An example is our decision in Bily limiting the duty of care owed by auditing firms to nonclient third parties. We begin here with a review of Bily, whose reasoning provides a useful point of comparison. We then discuss the key considerations that counsel in favor of recognizing a duty of care that design professionals owe to future homeowners in circumstances like those alleged in plaintiff’s complaint.

A.

Bily involved a suit brought by investors in a computer company against the accounting firm that the company had hired to conduct an audit and issue audit reports and financial statements. The plaintiffs claimed that the accounting firm, Arthur Young & Company, had committed negligence in conducting the audit and reporting a $69,000 operating profit rather than the company’s actual loss of more than $3 million. The computer company eventually filed for bankruptcy, and its investors lost money. They sued, claiming injury from reliance on Arthur Young’s allegedly negligent audit. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 377-379.)

579*579 We held that an auditor generally owes no duty of care to its client’s investors. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 407.) In so holding, we recognized the important “`”public watchdog” function'” of auditors (id. at p. 383) but sought to set a reasonable limit on their potential liability for professional negligence given the vast range of foreseeable third party users of audit reports. “Viewing the problem … in light of the [Biakanja] factors,” the court in Bily focused on “three central concerns.” (Id. at p. 398.)

First, “[g]iven the secondary `watchdog’ role of the auditor, the complexity of the professional opinions rendered in audit reports, and the difficult and potentially tenuous causal relationships between audit reports and economic losses from investment and credit decisions, the auditor exposed to negligence claims from all foreseeable third parties faces potential liability far out of proportion to its fault….” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 398.) In elaborating on this concern, the court observed that “audits are performed in a client-controlled environment.” (Id. at p. 399.) The client “necessarily furnishes the information base for the audit,” “has interests in the audit that may not be consonant with those of the public,” and “predominates in the dissemination of the audit report.” (Id. at pp. 399-400.) “Thus, regardless of the efforts of the auditor, the client retains effective primary control of the financial reporting process.” (Id. at p. 400.)

In addition, the court noted a mismatch between the auditor’s “secondary” role in the financial reporting process and the “primary” role attributed to the auditor as the cause of economic loss in a negligence suit by a third party. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 400.) Because “the auditor may never have been aware of the existence, let alone the nature or scope, of the third party transaction that resulted in the claim” (ibid.), and because “the ultimate decision to lend or invest is often based on numerous business factors that have little to do with the audit report,” the auditor’s conduct lacks a sufficiently “`close connection'” to the loss of loaned or invested funds to justify recognition of a duty of care to third parties (id. at p. 401). In this context, “the spectre of multibillion-dollar professional liability … is distinctly out of proportion to: (1) the fault of the auditor …; and (2) the connection between the auditor’s conduct and the third party’s injury….” (Bily, at p. 402.)

Second, Bily emphasized that unlike ordinary consumers in product liability cases, “the generally more sophisticated class of plaintiffs in auditor liability cases (e.g., business lenders and investors) permits the effective use of contract rather than tort liability to control and adjust the relevant risks through `private ordering’….” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 398.) “For example, a third party might expend its own resources to verify the client’s financial statements or selected portions of them that were particularly 580*580 material to its transaction with the client. Or it might commission its own audit or investigation, thus establishing privity between itself and an auditor or investigator to whom it could look for protection. In addition, it might bargain with the client for special security or improved terms in a credit or investment transaction. Finally, the third party could … insist[] that an audit be conducted on its behalf or establish[] direct communications with the auditor with respect to its transaction with the client.” (Id. at p. 403.) “As a matter of economic and social policy, third parties should be encouraged to rely on their own prudence, diligence, and contracting power, as well as other informational tools. This kind of self-reliance promotes sound investment and credit practices and discourages the careless use of monetary resources. If, instead, third parties are simply permitted to recover from the auditor for mistakes in the client’s financial statements, the auditor becomes, in effect, an insurer of not only the financial statements, but of bad loans and investments in general.” (Ibid.)

Third, Bily expressed skepticism that exposing auditors to third party negligence suits would improve the quality of the audits. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 404-405.) “In view of the inherent dependence of the auditor on the client and the labor-intensive nature of auditing, we doubt whether audits can be done in ways that would yield significantly greater accuracy without disadvantages. [Citation.] Auditors may rationally respond to increased liability by simply reducing audit services in fledgling industries where the business failure rate is high, reasoning that they will inevitably be singled out and sued when their client goes into bankruptcy regardless of the care or detail of their audits.” (Id. at p. 404.)

Notably, Bily did not categorically hold that auditors never owe a duty of care to third parties. Instead, Bily limited the duty to a “narrow class of persons who, although not clients, may reasonably come to receive and rely on an audit report and whose existence constitutes a risk of audit reporting that may fairly be imposed on the auditor. Such persons are specifically intended beneficiaries of the audit report who are known to the auditor and for whose benefit it renders the audit report.” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 406-407.) In situations where an auditor “clearly intended to undertake the responsibility of influencing particular business transactions involving third persons” with “sufficiently specific economic parameters to permit the [auditor] to assess the risk of moving forward,” liability for negligent misrepresentation may extend to persons “to whom or for whom the misrepresentations were made” so long as those persons have actually and justifiably relied on the auditor’s report. (Id. at pp. 408-409.)

581*581 B.

(4) In many ways, the circumstances of the present case stand in contrast to the concerns in Bily that counseled against general recognition of an auditor’s duty of care to third parties. Here we focus on three considerations that drive the analysis and distinguish this case from Bily: (1) the closeness of the connection between defendants’ conduct and plaintiff’s injury; (2) the limited and wholly evident class of persons and transactions that defendants’ conduct was intended to affect; and (3) the absence of private ordering options that would more efficiently protect homeowners from design defects and their resulting harms. We then summarize this analysis in terms of the Biakanja factors, and we distinguish Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 152, the principal case on which defendants rely. As explained below, we hold that an architect owes a duty of care to future homeowners where the architect is a principal architect on the project — that is, the architect, in providing professional design services, is not subordinate to any other design professional — even if the architect does not actually build the project or exercise ultimate control over construction decisions.

1.

First, unlike the secondary role played by the auditor in the financial reporting process, defendants’ primary role in the design of the Project bears a “`close connection'” to the injury alleged by plaintiff. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 401.) According to the complaint, defendants were the only architects on the Project. In that capacity, defendants “reviewed and approved the course of action where the specifications for the exterior windows … were changed to a design that inadequately prevented heat gain, which causes a seriously defective and nonfunctional condition that is also unhealthy.” Defendants also “recommended that the number of Z ducts [(ventilation ducts)] be reduced by a significant quantity, which is a major factor in the nonfunctional, unhealthy condition [of] the interior of the units.” The complaint alleges that these professional judgments were negligent and rendered the residential units unsafe and uninhabitable during certain periods of the year. Compared to “the connection between the auditor’s conduct and the third party’s injury (which will often be attenuated by unrelated business factors that underlie investment and credit decisions)” (Bily, at p. 402), the connection between defendants’ unique role as the design professionals on the Project and plaintiff’s damages resulting from negligent design is far more direct and immediate.

The trial court assigned dispositive significance to the fact that defendants did not go “beyond the typical role of an architect, which is to make recommendations to the owner,” and that “the final decision rested with the 582*582 owner….” Similarly, defendants contend that “they had no role in the actual construction. Instead, the developer, contractors, and subcontractors retained primary control over the construction process, as well as final say on how the plans were implemented.”

However, even if an architect does not actually build the project or make final decisions on construction, a property owner typically employs an architect in order to rely on the architect’s specialized training, technical expertise, and professional judgment. The Business and Professions Code defines “[t]he practice of architecture” as “offering or performing, or being in responsible control of, professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings and structures.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 5500.1, subd. (a); see id., § 5500.1, subd. (b) [providing a nonexhaustive list of “[a]rchitects’ professional services”].) The profession is licensed and regulated by the California Architects Board (id., §§ 5510, 5510.1, 5510.15, 5526), and the unlicensed or unauthorized practice of architecture is punishable as a misdemeanor (id., §§ 5536, 5536.1). In order to practice architecture, an applicant must pass two specialized exams, must demonstrate eight years of training and educational experience in architectural work, and must complete an internship program. (Id., §§ 5550, 5551, 5552, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 116-117.)

In this case, defendants were the principal architects on the Project. Among all the entities involved in the Project, defendants uniquely possessed architectural expertise. There is no suggestion that the owner or anyone else had special competence or exercised professional judgment on architectural issues such as adequate ventilation or code-compliant windows. Just as a lawyer cannot escape negligence liability to clearly intended third party beneficiaries on the ground that the client has the ultimate authority to follow or reject the lawyer’s advice (see, e.g.,Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 226 [74 Cal.Rptr. 225, 449 P.2d 161]; Lucas v. Hamm (1961) 56 Cal.2d 583, 588 [15 Cal.Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685]), so too an architect cannot escape such liability on the ground that the client makes the final decisions. An architect providing professional design services to a developer does not operate in a “client-controlled environment” comparable to the relationship between an auditor and its client. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 399.) Whereas an auditor’s “client, of course, has interests in the audit that may not be consonant with those of the public” (ibid.), it would be patently inconsistent with public policy to hold that an architect’s failure to exercise due care in designing a building can be justified by client interests at odds with the interest of prospective homeowners in safety and habitability.

Were there any doubt as to defendants’ principal role in the design of the Project, it is dispelled by additional facts alleged here. According to the 583*583 complaint, defendants not only provided design services at the outset of the Project but also brought their expertise to bear on the implementation of their plans and specifications by doing weekly inspections at the construction site, monitoring contractor compliance with design plans, altering design requirements as issues arose, and advising the owner of any nonconforming work that should be rejected — all for a fee of more than $5 million. In other words, defendants applied their specialized skill and professional judgment throughout the construction process to ensure that it would proceed according to approved designs. The work defendants performed does not resemble “a broadly phrased professional opinion based on a necessarily confined examination” of client-provided information (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 403), nor did defendants act merely as “suppliers of information and evaluations for the use and benefit of others” (id. at p. 410). Instead, defendants played a lead role not only in designing the Project but also in implementing the Project design.

Nor do we find persuasive defendants’ claim that the connection between their conduct and plaintiff’s injury is “attenuated because … when the developer sold the units two years after construction, it was aware of, and concealed, the alleged defects.” This specific allegation, if true, may inform whether defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. (See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Derrington(1961) 56 Cal.2d 130, 134 [14 Cal.Rptr. 1, 363 P.2d 1] [“independent, intervening cause” may preclude finding of proximate cause]; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 1214, pp. 590-591.) It also may give rise to a claim of equitable indemnity by defendants against the developer. (See Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1197-1198 [246 Cal.Rptr. 629, 753 P.2d 585];Greystone, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1208.) There is no reason to think in this case or in general that the developer and other major players have “left the scene” via bankruptcy, as is often the case with auditor liability suits. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4that p. 400.) But because the developer’s alleged misdeeds are themselves derivative of defendants’ allegedly negligent conduct, they do not diminish the closeness of the connection between defendants’ conduct and plaintiff’s injury for purposes of determining the existence of a duty of care.

2.

Second, recognizing that an architect who is a principal provider of professional design services on a residential building project owes a duty of care to future homeowners does not raise the prospect of “`liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.'” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 385,quoting Ultramares Corp. v. Touche (N.Y. 1931) 255 N.Y. 170 [174 N.E. 441, 444].) As the complaint here alleges, defendants engaged in work on the Project with the knowledge that the 584*584 finished construction would be sold as condominiums and used as residences. There was no uncertainty, as there was in Bily, as to “the existence, let alone the nature or scope, of the third party transaction that resulted in the claim.” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 400.) Defendants’ work on the Project “was intended to affect the plaintiff,” and “the `end and aim’ of the transaction was to provide” safe and habitable residences for future homeowners, a specific, foreseeable, and well-defined class. (Biakanja, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 650.) There is no “spectre of vast numbers of suits and limitless financial exposure” in this case. (Bily, at p. 400.) Instead, defendants “clearly intended to undertake the responsibility of influencing particular business transactions [(i.e., condominium purchases)] involving third persons [(i.e., prospective homeowners)]” (id. at p. 408) and could therefore “ascertain the potential scope of its liability and make rational decisions regarding the undertaking” (id. at p. 409). Further, as noted, defendants can limit their liability in proportion to fault through an action for equitable indemnification.

Defendants point to a provision in the contract with the developer that expressly disclaims the existence of any “third-party beneficiary of the obligations contained in the Agreement.” But we have never held that third party beneficiary status is a prerequisite to alleging negligence. In Bily, we noted only that third party beneficiaries “may under appropriate circumstances possess the rights of parties to the contract” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 406, fn. 16), not that the lack of such status precludes liability in tort. If anything, the contract provision on which defendants rely “only serves to emphasize the fact that [defendants] were more than well aware that future homeowners would necessarily be affected by the work that they performed,” as the Court of Appeal observed.

3.

Third, the prospect of private ordering as an alternative to negligence liability is far less compelling here than in Bily. Whereas “[i]nvestors, creditors, and others who read and rely on audit reports and financial statements are not the equivalent of ordinary consumers” because “they often possess considerable sophistication in analyzing financial information and are aware from training and experience of the limits of an audit report `product,'” the average home buyer is more akin to “the `presumptively powerless consumer’ in product liability cases.” (Bily, supra, 3Cal.4th at p. 403.) The typical home buyer “`clearly relies on the skill of the developer and on its implied representation that the house will be erected in reasonably workmanlike manner and will be reasonably fit for habitation. He has no architect or other professional adviser of his own, he has no real competency to inspect on his own, his actual examination is, in the nature of things, largely superficial, and his opportunity for obtaining meaningful protective changes 585*585 in the conveyancing documents prepared by the builder vendor is negligible.'” (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 228 [74 Cal.Rptr. 749] (Kriegler).) As Chief Justice Traynor said for the court in Connor v. Great Western Sav. & Loan Assn. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 850 [73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609], “the usual buyer of a home is ill-equipped with experience or financial means to discern … structural defects. [Citation.] Moreover a home is not only a major investment for the usual buyer but also the only shelter he has. Hence it becomes doubly important to protect him against structural defects that could prove beyond his capacity to remedy.” (Id.at p. 867.)

Defendants contend that plaintiff has options for redress within the bounds of privity: Plaintiff may seek an assignment of the developer’s rights against defendants, or plaintiff may pursue its design defect claims against the developer, and the developer may in turn seek redress from defendants. But it is questionable whether this more attenuated form of liability will consistently provide adequate redress. More importantly, the chief interest of prospective homeowners is to avoid purchasing a defective home, not only to have adequate redress after the fact. The long-established common law rule holding architects as independent professionals directly accountable to third party homeowners is most likely to vindicate that interest.

Moreover, as we recognized in Bily, the sophisticated consumer of audit reports “might expend its own resources to verify the client’s financial statements or selected portions of them that were particularly material to its transaction with the client. Or it might commission its own audit or investigation, thus establishing privity between itself and an auditor or investigator to whom it could look for protection.” (Bily, supra,3 Cal.4th at p. 403.) But it is unrealistic to expect home buyers to take comparable measures. A liability rule that places the onus on home buyers to employ their own architects to fully investigate the structure and design of each home they might be interested in purchasing does not seem more efficient than a rule that makes the architects who designed the homes directly responsible to home buyers for exercising due care in the first place. This seems especially true in “today’s society” given the “mass production and sale of homes” (Kriegler, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d at p. 227), such as the 595-unit condominium project in this case.

4.

For the reasons above, we conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient, if proven, to establish that defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners who constitute the Association. Our conclusion, which coheres with a substantial body of case law (ante, at pp. 574-577), may be 586*586 summarized in terms of the Biakanja factors: (1) Defendants’ work was intended to benefit the homeowners living in the residential units that defendants designed and helped to construct. (2) It was foreseeable that these homeowners would be among the limited class of persons harmed by the negligently designed units. (3) Plaintiff’s members have suffered injury; the design defects have made their homes unsafe and uninhabitable during certain periods. (4) In light of the nature and extent of defendants’ role as the sole architects on the Project, there is a close connection between defendants’ conduct and the injury suffered. (5) Because of defendants’ unique and well-compensated role in the Project as well as their awareness that future homeowners would rely on their specialized expertise in designing safe and habitable homes, significant moral blame attaches to defendants’ conduct. (6) The policy of preventing future harm to homeowners reliant on architects’ specialized skills supports recognition of a duty of care. Options for private ordering are often unrealistic for typical homeowners, and no reason appears to favor homeowners as opposed to architects as efficient distributors of loss resulting from negligent design.

Defendants contend that the balance of Biakanja factors is no different in this case than in Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 152, where the court found no duty of care owed by a design engineer to the third party owner of commercial property. But the defendants in Weseloh played a materially different role in the construction project than defendants did here.

In Weseloh, a property owner (Weseloh) contracted with a general contractor (Wessel) to build an automobile dealership on the property. A subcontractor, Sierra Pacific Earth Retention Corporation (Sierra), built the retaining walls for the project. Sierra, in turn, enlisted Charles Randle, an employee of Owen Engineering Company (Owen), to design two retaining walls for a fee of $1,500 or $2,200. Neither Randle nor Owen had a contractual relationship with Weseloh, and neither supervised the construction of the retaining walls. At Sierra’s request, Randle and Owen inspected the retaining walls after construction. When a portion of the retaining walls failed, resulting in $6 million of property damage, Weseloh sued Wessel, Sierra, Randle and Owen. Weseloh entered into a settlement agreement with Wessel and Sierra, but the suits against Randle and Owen went forward. On summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Randle and Owen owed no duty to Weseloh, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (See Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at pp. 158-162.)

As suggested by the size of their fee, the defendants in Weseloh had a limited role in the construction project. The “undisputed evidence” showed that “neither Randle nor Owen had a `role in the construction’ of the retaining walls….” (Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 164.) In addition, 587*587 although “Randle was aware the property was owned by Weseloh,” the Court of Appeal found it significant that Randle and Owen provided their services to Sierra, another engineering firm. As the court observed, “the earth retention calculations prepared for Wessel … identified the preparer as [Sierra], not Randle or Owen. This evidence bolsters the position that Randle and Owen’s role in the project was to primarily benefit Sierra as the preparer of the calculations. To the extent Randle and Owen’s participation in the project would also benefit Wessel and the Weseloh plaintiffs, it was only through Sierra.” (Id.at p. 167; see id. at p. 171, fn. 5 [noting that Sierra paid $1.2 million of the alleged $6 million liability under the settlement agreement].)

The circumstances in this case are plainly different. Unlike Randle and Owen, whose work informed their client’s own exercise of technical expertise in preparing earth retention calculations, defendants here were the sole entities providing architectural services to the Project. They did not provide their specialized services to a client or other entity that in turn applied its own architectural expertise to the plans and specifications supplied by defendants. Moreover, defendants not only applied their expertise to designing the Project but further applied their expertise to ensure that construction would conform to approved designs. Weseloh, which expressly limited its holding to its facts (Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 173), does not stand for the broad proposition that a design professional cannot be liable in negligence to third parties so long as it renders “professional advice and opinion” (id. at p. 169) without having ultimate decisionmaking authority. Instead, Weseloh merely suggests that an architect’s role in a project can be so minor and so subordinate to the role or judgment of other design professionals as to foreclose the architect’s liability in negligence to third parties.

Moreover, the Weseloh court, reviewing the case at the summary judgment stage, concluded that the plaintiffs had “failed to produce evidence showing how and the extent to which their damages were caused by the asserted design defects.” (Weseloh, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 168.) The court also noted the absence of evidence that “Sierra actually used Randle and Owen’s design without alteration in constructing the retaining walls.” (Ibid.) These observations regarding lack of causation not only informed Weseloh‘s duty analysis (see id. at pp. 168-169) but also provided an independent basis for granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. In the present case, which is before us on demurrer, no similar causation problem confronts us. According to the complaint, defendants approved the use of defective windows and designed a defective ventilation system, all of which created conditions that made the homes uninhabitable for portions of the year. The complaint sufficiently alleges the causal link between defendants’ negligence and plaintiff’s injury that was lacking in Weseloh.

588*588 IV.

For the reasons above, we conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining defendants’ demurrer on the ground that they owed no duty of care to the Association’s members. Because the Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial court’s judgment, we affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., and Richman, J.,^[*] concurred.

[*] Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Keywords:Construction Defect