Id. at 931. Finally, in Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (1992), the plaintiff sued the owner of a horse stable after she sustained injuries while riding a rented horse. The plaintiff alleged the owner of the stable was a common carrier.
]" ( Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid TransitDist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 785 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840, 710 P.2d 907].)Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714] held that section 2100 applies only to common carriers, and not to private carriers for reward. We stated in Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., supra, 40 Cal.3d 780, 785, that "[t]he duty imposed by section 2100 applies to public carriers as well as private carriers. . . ."
These sections apply to common carriers for reward. (E.g., Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1257 [§ 2100]; Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784 [same]; Gradus v. Hanson Aviation, Inc. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1038, 1049 [§ 2101]; Cooper v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 389, 396 [same].) Disney demurred to the common carrier causes of action in the first amended complaint.
Samuelson v. Public Utilities Com., 36 Cal.2d 722, 730, 227 P.2d 256 (Cal.1951); Duntley, 217 Cal. at 163–64, 17 P.2d 715. Private carriers “make no public profession that they will carry for all who apply, but who occasionally or upon the particular occasion undertake for compensation to carry the goods of others upon such terms as may be agreed upon.” Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 788, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (Cal.App.1992). Private carriers are not bound to carry for any reason unless they enter into a special agreement to do so. Associated Pipe Line Co. v. R.R. Comm'n., 176 Cal. 518, 169 P. 62 (Cal.1917).
CA Civ. Code § 2168. California courts interpret that definition to include only those who are "bound to accept anyone who tenders the price of carriage.' Webster v. Ebright, 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 787, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 714 (1992) (citing Samuelson v. Public Utilities Com., 36 Cal.2d 722, 729, 227 P.2d 256 (1951)). Chubb has proffered no evidence to suggest that HA.
See Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 755-756 [Vehicle Code is relevant to the doctrine of negligence per se which " 'means that the court has adopted the conduct prescribed by the statute as the standard of care for a reasonable person in the circumstances' "]. See also Webster v. Ebright (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 784, 787 [Civil Code section 2100 codifies previous common law principles imposing a heightened duty of care for common carriers]. D. Plaintiffs Have Not Met Their Burden to Show an Abuse of Discretion