In what circumstances have defendants been found to be liable in a civil action?

In Grudt v. City of Los Angeles, supra, the complaint alleged that plaintiff's husband was wrongfully killed by the city police. The liability of the city was pleaded on a theory of respondeat superior. The amended complaint alleged an additional theory of active negligence by the city in retaining employees known to be dangerous. The underlying cause of death was always the conduct of the police officers in the same shooting incident.

Barnes v. Wilson, supra, involved the injury to a plaintiff as the result of an assault by an intoxicated individual. The original complaint charged the owners of the bar where the assault occurred. The theory of liability was the negligent failure of the owners to restrain the assailant and protect the plaintiff. The amended complaint charged the owners of a neighboring bar with having prior to the assault, furnished liquor to the intoxicated assailant. Thus, though the cause of action, the defendants and the theory of liability of the amended complaint were all different from the original complaint, the assailant and the injury were the same. The new defendants were simply added as a part of the chain of causation.

Finally, in Smeltzley v. Nicholson, supra, plaintiff's leg was amputated on a piece of machinery in an accident on his employer's premises. The original complaint charged the employer and various "Does" with failing to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work. The [90 Cal.App.3d 347] amended complaint named the manufacturer of the machine and alleged defective manufacture.