240 Cal. App. 4th 523
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Grace and Blair sue Mansourian and Satina for injuries from a collision where Mansourian allegedly ran a red light.
- Defendants’ memory-based belief the light was yellow led to denial of liability and multiple admission-denial requests.
- Plaintiffs sought costs of proof under CCP 2033.420 for defendants’ denials on negligence, causation, and damages.
- Dr. Baird opined ankle fracture and necessary surgery; he disputed some neck/back injuries and their relation to the accident.
- Trial evidence included Napoli and Villelli testimony, police report, and accident reconstruction indicating fault on defendant.
- The trial court denied costs of proof; appellate court reverses re liability costs and remands for determination of admissible proof costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of liability for running red light reasonable? | Grace argues denial lacked reasonable basis given substantial evidence of fault. | Mansourian asserts belief in yellow light could prevail; denial reasonable based on memory. | Not reasonable; liability costs must be awarded. |
| Were denial of causation and damages regarding ankle injuries reasonable? | Plaintiff's ankle injury and treatment were caused by the accident and should be admitted. | Defendants relied on Baird to deny extent of injuries and necessity of treatment. | Not clearly reasonable; remand to determine costs tied to ankle issues. |
| Does a pretrial stipulation to medical bills bar costs of proof for those items? | Stipulation may not preclude recovery if not covering all ankle-related treatment. | Stipulation defeats recovery for those items. | If stipulation includes ankle treatment, not recoverable; otherwise remand to amount. |
| Were future surgeries and related treatments reasonably denying costs of proof? | Future surgeries and neck treatments were necessary and caused by the accident. | Baird's opinions supported denying future treatments and costs. | Reasonable to deny future costs; not recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp., 56 Cal.App.4th 618 (1997) (costs of proof where denial lacked reasonable basis)
- Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (2008) (reasonable ground to believe prevail on issue governs costs)
- Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., 179 Cal.App.3d 500 (1986) (factors for costs of proof; not exclusive, emphasize investigation)
- Stull v. Sparrow, 92 Cal.App.4th 860 (2001) (stipulations affect recoverable costs of proof)
- Wagy v. Brown, 24 Cal.App.4th 1 (1994) (costs of proof require proving the truth of matters)
- Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal.App.4th 752 (2014) (purpose of admissions; need to investigate and not rely on mere denial)
- Garcia v. Hyster Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 724 (1994) (admissions can cover legal conclusions; duty to investigate)