In Holmes v. Bricker, Inc. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 786, the California Supreme Court held that a single breach of express warranty does not give rise to two causes of action when it results in injury to person and property. There, the plaintiffs were involved in a car accident resulting in personal injuries and damage to their car, which they had bought from a dealer who gave them an express warranty that the car was in good working condition. (Id. at p. 787.) The plaintiffs sued the dealer for personal injury damages, alleging causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation. (Id. at pp. 787-788.) After obtaining a judgment in the first action, they sued the dealer to recover for damage to their car under a breach of express warranty theory. (Id. at p. 788.) The trial court dismissed that action finding it barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed. It acknowledged its prior decisions that causes of action for personal injuries as opposed to property damage are separate (id. at p. 789), but explained those cases involved the settled rule that "a separate cause of action does not arise for each separate item of property damaged as a result of one tortious act." (Ibid.) The court distinguished the case before it, which did not involve a claim of tortious injury, but was an action for breach of express warranty identical to the breach involved in the first cause of action: "The breach alleged is the identical breach of warranty alleged in their first cause of action in the prior suit. Accordingly, the crucial question is whether a single breach of the express warranty gave rise to two causes of action when it resulted in injury to both the persons and the property of plaintiffs. We hold that it did not. The warranty pleaded in this case was essentially contractual in character. It was created by agreement of the parties; it did not arise by operation of law; and it was subject to negotiation and modification at the time the contract was entered into. Under these circumstances the applicable rule is that all damages for a single breach of contract must be recovered in one action. " (Holmes v. Bricker, at pp. 789-790.)