David v. Hernandez
226 Cal. App. 4th 578
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Collision on Pacific Coast Highway: Hernandez (truck) stopped in an asphalt parking area adjacent to the southbound lane, then re-entered the roadway and turned left into the northbound lane; trailer’s rear extended into the southbound lane and was struck by David’s southbound vehicle at dusk.
- Hernandez, an experienced trucker, had most lights on but one front right-turn signal did not work; some side reflector strips were deteriorated; trailer lights on left side were damaged post-collision.
- David (driver) had no memory of the crash; passenger Pierson briefly opened a laptop just before impact; there was no evidence David braked or made an evasive maneuver.
- Jury returned a special verdict: Hernandez was negligent, but his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm (unanimous on causation). Plaintiffs appealed and moved for a new trial; trial court denied the motion but made findings that Hernandez violated Vehicle Code §22502 by parking on the left-facing oncoming traffic and that the trailer’s tail would not have been in the southbound lane but for its entering from the right.
- Court of Appeal held the special verdict was not fatally inconsistent or unsupported by evidence as to the jury’s no-causation finding, but reversed the denial of the new trial because the trial court’s express findings (negligence per se under §22502 and that the trailer’s presence in the lane resulted from that violation) compelled a contrary legal result and therefore the trial court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special verdict is fatally inconsistent (negligence + no substantial causation) | Negligence necessarily implies causation; verdict cannot stand | Multiple negligence theories could be rebutted as noncausal; verdict can be reconciled | Not inconsistent; reasonable inferences exist to reconcile findings |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting no substantial factor finding | Evidence conclusively shows Hernandez’s violations caused the collision | Evidence supports inference David’s inattention caused collision; Hernandez’s faults were not substantial factors | Evidence was sufficient to support jury’s no-causation finding on appeal |
| Whether Hernandez was negligent per se under Vehicle Code §22502 (left-hand parking) | Hernandez illegally parked facing oncoming traffic, negligence per se; this caused the collision | Fact question whether truck was on a roadway or in an adjacent parking area; reasonable minds could differ | Jury could reasonably find Hernandez legally parked; not necessarily negligence per se at trial; but trial court expressly found §22502 violation in denying new trial |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying new trial based on insufficiency of evidence | Trial court’s own findings that Hernandez violated §22502 and that trailer would not have been in lane but for that entry legally required finding of substantial causation and new trial | Denial may be upheld if any basis in record supports it; trial court need not state reasons when denying new trial | Trial court abused discretion: its findings legally compelled conclusion Hernandez’s negligence was a substantial factor; denial reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crittendon v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.2d 565 (Cal. 1964) (left-hand parking poses substantial highway hazard; vehicles must merge across lanes to reenter highway)
- Jonkey v. Carignan Const. Co., 139 Cal.App.4th 20 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (where jury’s general negligence finding is silent as to theory, a single theory lawfully rebutted on causation sustains no-causation outcome)
- Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 338 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (special verdict inconsistent only where no possibility of reconciling findings)
- In re Ethan C., 54 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2012) (conduct is a substantial factor when injury would not have occurred but for that conduct)
- Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (comparative fault assigns nonzero share when conduct is a substantial factor in causation)
- Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hosp., 55 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 2012) (comparative fault apportions liability in proportion to respective fault)
- People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.), 43 Cal.4th 737 (Cal. 2008) (trial court abuses discretion when decision rests on an error of law)
- Baker v. American Horticulture Supply, Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (standards for appellate review of trial rulings on new trials/motions)
- Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706 (Cal. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard components: facts, law, and application)
- Barrese v. Murray, 198 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court must independently assess sufficiency when ruling on new trial for insufficiency)