Gonsalves v. Li
232 Cal. App. 4th 1406
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- During a BMW M3 test drive in 2008, defendant Ran Li lost control on an on‑ramp; plaintiff-salesperson Kenneth Gonsalves (rear seat) claimed significant neck/back injuries and sued for negligence. A jury found Li solely negligent and awarded ≈ $1.2M; judgment entered and Li appealed.
- Disputed factual issues included (a) whether Li or Gonsalves urged pressing the car’s “M” mode button (which may alter stability control), and (b) whether speed or loss of stability caused the spin. Experts disagreed on causation.
- At trial plaintiff called Li as an adverse witness and cross‑examined him about his written responses to Requests for Admission (RFAs), eliciting qualified denials; the court admitted the RFA responses in evidence.
- Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly questioned lay witnesses about whether Li’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing the accident, elicited evidence of Li’s prior speeding tickets, and made closing/other arguments later challenged as counsel misconduct.
- The court admitted a treating surgeon’s causation opinion and allowed CHP testimony and deposition excerpts for impeachment/rehabilitation purposes; post‑trial Li moved for a new trial arguing evidentiary error, juror misconduct, and attorney misconduct. The appellate court found multiple trial errors and counsel misconduct cumulatively prejudicial and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/use at trial of denials to Requests for Admission (RFAs) | Gonsalves relied on Li’s RFA answers and cross‑examined Li about his qualified denials; introduced the written responses to impeach and show lack of responsibility. | Li argued RFAs bind only admissions; denials are not substantive evidence and may not be used at trial to impeach or inflame the jury. | Reversed error: denials/qualified denials to RFAs are not admissible evidence in an ordinary case and the court erred in admitting and using them at trial. |
| Permitting lay witnesses to be asked about ultimate legal issue ("substantial factor" causation) | Plaintiff argued lay testimony as to perceptions and causation was proper and probative to liability. | Li argued asking non‑experts to decide the ultimate legal issue improperly invaded the jury’s function and overlapped with expert testimony. | Reversed error: frequent questioning of lay witnesses about "substantial factor" was improper—ultimate causation is for jury/expert; court should not have permitted lay opinion on that ultimate issue. |
| Admission of prior speeding tickets | Plaintiff argued prior tickets showed Li’s knowledge of high speed and therefore were relevant to how fast he was driving during the test drive. | Li contended tickets were propensity evidence, irrelevant to the particular incident, and prejudicial under Evidence Code §352. | Reversed error: prior speeding tickets were improperly admitted as propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial; they should have been excluded. |
| Attorney misconduct (remarks about prior paraplegic client; workers’ compensation reimbursement references), and cumulative prejudice | Gonsalves maintained the remarks were fair argument or provoked and not outcome‑determinative; some objections were sustained and court admonished. | Li argued counsel intentionally injected inflammatory, non‑evidentiary matters (sympathy appeal, incorrect workers’ comp reimbursement statements), prejudicing the defense. | Held: at least two instances of counsel misconduct (repeating the paraplegic‑client reference after it was stricken; improper workers’ comp reimbursement assertions) occurred; when combined with evidentiary errors, cumulative prejudice required a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for reversal: reasonable probability of different result)
- Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (attorney misconduct in closing can warrant new trial)
- Morris v. Frudenfeld, 135 Cal.App.3d 23 (trial court discretion re: prior discovery statements/exclusion)
- Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (legal contention questions inappropriate at deposition; interrogatories proper vehicle)
- Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix, 224 Cal.App.3d 104 (limits on lay opinion: may not address ultimate reasonableness)
- Travis v. Southern Pacific Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 410 (prior traffic citations generally inadmissible to prove negligence on particular occasion)
- Pannu v. Land Rover N. Am., 191 Cal.App.4th 1298 (admission of evidence reviewed under Watson standard)
- Gutierrez v. Mass. Bay Transp. Authority, 772 N.E.2d 552 (Mass. high court: denials to RFAs not admissible; sanctions, not evidentiary use)