Pope v. Babick
229 Cal. App. 4th 1238
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- July 2008 multi-vehicle freeway crash on westbound I‑10 near Redlands: plaintiff passengers Pope and Nightingale in a GMC Yukon were struck after the driver of a Nissan (Sert) lost control and rolled; Stanley was driving a 1970 Oldsmobile convertible and left the scene.
- Plaintiffs sued Stanley (driver) and Babick (owner). Plaintiffs later settled with Sert; trial proceeded against Stanley and Babick.
- CHP Officer Michael Earl prepared an investigation attributing cause to an unsafe lane change by Sert; plaintiffs successfully obtained an in limine ruling excluding CHP officers’ causation opinions without foundation.
- At trial Earl was asked by Babick’s counsel one question eliciting Earl’s excluded causation opinion; the answer was stricken, jury given a curative instruction, counsel sanctioned $500, and plaintiffs’ mistrial/new‑trial motions were denied.
- The jury heard competing eyewitness testimony and plaintiffs’ own accident expert who opined Sert overreacted due to youth/inexperience; the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Stanley not negligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (substantial evidence) | Verdict against plaintiffs must be reversed because evidence supports Stanley’s negligence | There was substantial evidence (Stanley and other witnesses) to support verdict for defendants | Affirmed: reviewing court views evidence favorably to prevailing party and finds substantial evidence supports verdict in defendants’ favor |
| Improper elicitation of excluded CHP causation opinion (mistrial) | Kane’s question/answer violated court order and was so prejudicial a mistrial was required | Single question was inadvertent/curable and jury admonition sufficed | Denied: trial court did not abuse discretion; curative instruction appropriate |
| Attorney misconduct/new trial (prejudice) | Kane’s misconduct was egregious and prejudiced plaintiffs enough to require new trial | Misconduct was limited (single response); instruction cured prejudice; record contains damaging evidence against plaintiffs | Denied: no reasonable probability outcome would differ; instruction and record cured prejudice |
| Babick’s cross‑appeal re vehicle ownership | (Plaintiffs filed protective cross‑appeal) | Not necessary to address if main appeal fails | Not addressed—moot given affirmance on plaintiffs’ appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1094 (standard for reviewing challenged findings of fact; substantial evidence review)
- Blumenthal v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App. 4th 672 (mistrial standard; trial court’s discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Dominguez v. Pantalone, 212 Cal. App. 3d 201 (curative instruction may cure improper elicitation of officer’s opinion; mistrial not required)
- City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 18 Cal. 3d 860 (new trial—prejudice requires reasonable probability verdict would differ)
- Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal. 4th 780 (presumption that juries follow court instructions)