How have courts considered the duty to maintain brakes in good working order and the defense to the statutory violation?

The duty to maintain brakes in good working order and the defense to the statutory violation were considered in Maloney v. Rath (1968) 69 Cal.2d 442, 71 Cal.Rptr. 897, 445 P.2d 513. Although recognizing a strict liability system might be preferable in brake failure cases, the court refused to extend the strict liability doctrine because of the complications and uncertainties which might ensue. Nevertheless, it was held that, in the light of the grave risk of serious bodily harm due to careless maintenance of brakes, the duty to maintain brakes could not be delegated and a defendant could not rebut negligence merely by showing he entrusted others to repair and inspect.

The companion case of Clark v. Dziabas (1968) 69 Cal.2d 449, 71 Cal.Rptr. 901, 445 P.2d 517, also dealt with the showing necessary to rebut negligence where brake failure caused the accident. In that case, the defendant had purchased a used car a year before the accident, and he offered evidence that he had his car serviced with the brakes adjusted about five weeks prior to the accident and that the brakes had failed due to defective soldering. There was no evidence as to who had done the soldering or whether the defective soldering would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.