This discussion relates to tort liability, that is, liability for a civil wrong or injury, rather than a criminal wrong, not related to a breach of contract. The liability system seeks to provide damages to the victim of that tort.

The first step in determining tort liability is an assessment of the action, or inaction that resulted in the harm to a third party. Various standards are used to evaluate such action or inaction. These include two related negligence standards.

• Was the conduct less than the standard of ordinary care or reasonable care? Is it behavior that would be avoided by the reasonable person?
• In comparing the costs of acting to reduce the risk of harm, were these costs less than the potential benefits?

There are also several strict liability standards.

• The products liability standard substitutes a strict "products defect" standard for a negligence standard.
• In the event that the harm or damage is caused by activities that the law considers "ultrahazardous," tort liability is also automatically imposed.
• The vicarious liability of an employer for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment is generally accepted.
• The statutory scheme of workers' compensation imposes strict liability on the employer for all injuries to employees, if the injuries occur "in the course of" and "arise out of" their employment. However, the statute restricts the amount of damages that the employee may recover.
• Failure to meet some statutory or regulatory standards is negligence per se if the harm that results from such a failure is the type of harm which that statute or regulation is intended to prevent.

The kinds of harm or injury that are recognized by the legal system include:

• bodily injury or death;
• property damage;
• emotional distress; and
• economic harm.

The second step of the analysis is whether the action or inaction "caused" (in the legal sense) the harm. Another way of expressing the concept is whether it is "foreseeable" that the harm would result from the action or inaction. The fact is that earthquakes have and will continue to occur in California. The damage resulting from an earthquake may be foreseeable and under some circumstances can be mitigated, at least partially.

ABAG, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), the American Red Cross - Bay Area, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and other professional organizations have worked to improve the state of knowledge of earthquakes and their effects, and to publicize that information. Reports from these various agencies and professional organizations also point out the growing consensus on earthquake hazards, hazardous buildings, and appropriate hazard mitigation and preparedness activities.

For risk assessment purposes, one can proceed from the premise that the failure to take reasonable and cost effective hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness actions prior to an earthquake will be judged negligent and that the resulting harm will be "caused" by such negligent failure.

Under California law, the contributory negligence of a victim does not bar recovery but only reduces the size of that recovery.

Developers may be liable for earthquake-related damages and injuries under theories of implied warranty or strict liability.

Designing a building to meet code standards does not act as a shield to liability. However, not meeting earthquake-related codes will surely result in being judged negligent. A design professional will be held liable to a standard of behavior that is established in like cases by members of the same profession practicing in the same or similar localities. It is also likely that expert testimony would be introduced. Thus, building owners and design professionals are held to standards that are continuing to evolve over time.

Many companies want better information about their liability for earthquake hazards and how improved scientific and engineering knowledge of those hazards affects this liability.

So little information has been available about liability and how it influences company decisions that policy-makers have not know if liability could be used to promote earthquake safety more effectively.

ABAG received funding from the National Science Foundation's Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program for a 2-year study to examine these issues. In additional to a thorough legal analysis, ABAG staff conducted lengthy interviews with company and local government officials at sites of earthquakes that had occurred in the decade prior to the research - San Fernando, El Centro, Santa Barbara, and Livermore, as well as in Redwood City for control purposes. Written surveys were also sent to key company officials and design professionals working with a variety of types and sizes of companies throughout California. The interview and mail survey samples were supplemented with additional interviews of company officials in selected business sectors.

The information published on this web site is based on the reports produced from the 1984 project, reviewed and updated to 2004. To order the full 1984 reports, go to -

ABAG's Web Store.