Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises
216 Cal. App. 4th 359
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Accident on I-101 where White, intoxicated by marijuana, struck a roadside Xterra killing Parra and severely injuring Pedeferri; White had two bikes loaded by Bert's employees in his truck bed.
- Bert's Enterprises and RJS Financial loaded and strapped two dirt bikes into White's truck shortly before the crash; bikes hopped and ultimately contributed to the collision.
- Plaintiffs allege Bert's negligence in loading/ securing cargo distracted the driver, proximately causing injuries to roadside victims.
- White pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated; jury allocated 67% fault to White and 33% to Bert's, with damages totaling about $49.6 million.
- Trial court denied Bert's motion to strike toxicologist testimony and later remitted damages; after severities, judgment against White and Bert's was vacated and remanded for a new trial.
- On remand, court addresses duty of care for vendors, causation, and admissibility of expert testimony dotyczing impairment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bert's owed a duty to those on the roadway to load cargo so as not to distract the driver. | Pedeferri argues Bert's duty to load securely extends to distraction of drivers on road. | Bert's contends no such duty exists beyond preventing cargo from falling out. | Yes; vendor duty extends to loading practices that distract drivers. |
| Whether White's intervening marijuana impairment severed causation. | Pedeferri asserts White's impairment was not superseding; Bert's negligence contributed. | Bert's argues White's impairment superseded causation. | No; impairment not a superseding cause as a matter of law; jury questions remain. |
| Whether the toxicologist's claim that White was a chronic marijuana user was properly admitted. | Toxicologist's assumptions were valid, supporting non-impairment. | Assumptions were unfounded; testimony should be struck. | Trial court abused discretion by admitting unreliable chronic-use testimony; remand for new trial. |
| Whether the toxicologist testimony affected the allocation of fault. | Opinion significantly influenced liability split. | Liability split could be supported by other evidence. | Reasonable probability the verdict was affected; remand warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cabral v. Ralph's Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (duty of care and policy in tort liability; foreseeability analysis)
- Laabs v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 175 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal. App. 2d 2009) (foreseeability and duty analysis framework)
- Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol, 26 Cal.4th 703 (Cal. 2001) (duty to stop or assist in roadside risk context; superseding causation)
- Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 16 Cal.App.4th 1830 (Cal. App. 4th 1993) (duty and causation in roadside contexts; non-immunity of distraction source)
- Bloomberg v. Interinsurance Exchange, 162 Cal.App.3d 571 (Cal. App. 1984) (duty to loading/ unloading; liability for distraction on road)