Rayii v. Gatica CA2/3
218 Cal. App. 4th 1402
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rayii was injured in a head-on collision with a car driven by Gatica on a two-lane road in 2006, near Newhall.
- Gatica was employed by Gateway Insulation and was returning from a jobsite in Valencia when the collision occurred.
- Gatica had purchased a 1991 Honda Accord from Seciada the day before the collision and had never driven in the United States prior to the purchase.
- Trial evidence showed conflicting possibilities whether Gatica was en route to a special errand for Gateway or returning home; the jury found he was not acting within the course and scope of employment.
- The jury further found Seciada was not the owner of the vehicle, Gateway was not negligent in hiring or supervising, and Rayii was awarded $100,000 in damages against Gatica.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gatica acted within the course and scope of employment | Rayii: Gatica was returning from a jobsite on Gateway business | Gatica: returning home or to warehouse; no special errand | Substantial evidence supported not acting within scope |
| Whether Seciada is liable as the registered owner | Rayii argues Seciada owner under Vehicle Code §17150 | Gatica testified transfer paperwork not completed; ownership facts inconclusive | Cannot raise owner liability for the first time on appeal; not conclusively owner |
| Whether Seciada is liable for negligent entrustment | Seciada entrusted unfit driver; should have known of Gatica’s unfitness | No owner finding; no basis for entrustment claim; lack of knowledge by Seciada | No error; entrustment theory not preserved or supported |
| Whether Gateway’s counsel committed attorney misconduct warranting a new trial | Opening statements referenced financial condition and downsizing improperly | Trial court permitted limited discussion; no improper prejudice shown | Waived for lack of timely objection/admonition; no new trial warranted |
| Whether order of proof or Dr. Klapper’s statements deprived Rayii of a fair trial | Out-of-order expert testimony and cross-examination remarks prejudicial | Court acted within discretion; any prejudice was curable by instructions | No abuse of discretion; no reversible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (appellate error burden and sufficiency of record)
- In re Marriage of Fink, 25 Cal.3d 877 (1979) (must cite evidence supporting judgment; waiver if not discussed)
- Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal.App.4th 62 (2012) (sufficiency and evidentiary standard on appeal)
- Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 Cal.4th 780 (2004) (admission of evidence; necessity of timely objection and prejudice standard)
- People v. Hill, 17 Cal.4th 800 (1998) (admonition and remedy when trial court errs)
- Richmond v. Dart Indus., Inc., 196 Cal.App.3d 869 (1987) (new trial on appeal; consideration of undisputed issues)
- Ward v. Taggart, 51 Cal.2d 736 (1959) (new trial and evidentiary issues; appellate treatment)
- Estate of Lefranc, 95 Cal.App.2d 885 (1950) (order of proof; abuse of discretion standard)
- Capelouto v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 7 Cal.3d 889 (1972) (assessment of noneconomic damages; jury discretion)
- City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 18 Cal.3d 860 (1977) (new trial standard; abuse of discretion)