10 Cal.4th 1185, 899 P.2d 905, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 (1995)
In March 1990 Nadine L. Peterson filed an amended complaint against Banque Paribas, Palm Springs Marquis, Inc., Harbaugh Hotel Management Corporation, and Kohler Company alleging that while a guest at the Palm Springs Marquis Hotel she slipped and fell in the bathtub during a shower and sustained serious head injuries because the surface was extremely slick without anti-skid surfaces, grab rails, or similar safety measures.1
Kohler Company settled Peterson's claims for $600,000 and the superior court found the settlement was entered in good faith.2 Prior to trial, the hotel defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude any evidence or reference that strict liability applied.3 They contended that the rationale of Becker v. IRM Corp. did not extend to hotel owners and operators.4 The trial court granted the motion as a matter of law and ruled that strict liability under Becker was inapplicable to the proceedings.5
A jury trial commenced but ended in a mistrial on August 17, 1992 when the court excluded testimony from Peterson's expert witnesses for reasons unrelated to the strict liability issue.6 On October 3, 1992 the trial court confirmed its earlier ruling that strict liability was not applicable upon retrial.7 Peterson petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate challenging the order; after an initial summary denial the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back with directions to issue an alternative writ.8
Following further proceedings the Court of Appeal issued an opinion directing the trial court to permit Peterson to proceed on her strict liability theory and concluding that Becker applied to hotel proprietors.9 The hotel defendants petitioned for review and the Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Becker should be overruled and whether hotel proprietors could be held strictly liable for injuries caused by defects in the premises.10
Whether the decision in Becker v. IRM Corp. should be overruled to the extent it imposed strict products liability on residential landlords for injuries to tenants caused by defects in leased premises?11
The doctrine of strict products liability applies to manufacturers, retailers, and others in the marketing chain who place defective products into the stream of commerce.12 These parties are in a superior position to bear and spread the costs of injuries and to exert pressure for safer design.13 A landlord purchasing an existing building is not part of that enterprise, does not manufacture or market the premises, and generally lacks a continuing business relationship with the builder or manufacturer that would permit cost adjustment or design influence.14
Yes. The policy considerations justifying strict liability for manufacturers and retailers do not apply with equal force to landlords.15 Landlords do not place defective products into the stream of commerce in the same manner as those in the manufacturing chain.16 Although landlords may spread costs among tenants, that factor alone does not warrant strict liability.17 The implied warranty of habitability supplies an adequate remedy by allowing recovery of contract damages for personal injuries.18
Applying the rule to the established facts shows that the hotel defendants stand in the same position as landlords.19 They did not create or market the bathtub but merely provided premises containing it.20
The decision in Becker v. IRM Corp. should be overruled to the extent it imposed strict products liability on residential landlords for injuries to tenants caused by defects in leased premises.21
Whether the proprietor of a hotel may be held strictly liable under products liability principles for injuries to a guest caused by a defect in the hotel premises?22
A hotel proprietor is not part of the chain of distribution of products installed in the premises, such as bathtubs, and therefore cannot be held strictly liable under products liability principles.23 The duty owed by a hotel proprietor to guests is governed by ordinary negligence principles requiring reasonable care under the circumstances, including inspection for defects that would be disclosed by reasonable diligence.24
No. A hotel owner is not the equivalent of a retailer merely because a product such as a bathtub is installed for guest use.25 The product left the stream of commerce upon purchase and installation.26 Imposing strict liability would not incentivize safer manufacturing because hotel proprietors ordinarily lack a direct relationship with manufacturers.27 Loss spreading alone cannot justify strict liability when the remaining policy rationales are absent.28
In the present case the trial court granted the motion in limine barring strict-liability evidence.29 The Court of Appeal erred by directing that Peterson be permitted to proceed on that theory.30 Peterson retains her negligence claim against the hotel defendants and has already recovered from the manufacturer through settlement.31
The proprietor of a hotel may not be held strictly liable under products liability principles for injuries to a guest caused by a defect in the hotel premises.32