Robert Cardenas v. United States of America, 2:14-cv-04904

Collision on July 2, 2012, near Gardena Post Office: plaintiff (Cardenas) driving westbound struck the right rear side of a USPS LLV driven by employee Susan Slaughter as she completed a left turn into the post office employee driveway.
Slaughter: stopped in the designated left-turn pocket, signaled, yielded to westbound traffic, entered turn when lanes yielded, had unobstructed view of the shoulder and did not see plaintiff before the collision; postal truck rear wheels were in the paved shoulder when struck.
Cardenas: was driving in the paved shoulder (concrete gutter) to pass stopped traffic on the right for ~70–80 feet at speeds up to ~25 mph, wearing a restrictive post‑surgery wrist brace, and had taken prescription Norco that day; he did not look for traffic from the left‑turn pocket.
Roadway: two marked westbound lanes in the area (no third/merge lane); passing on the shoulder is prohibited by Cal. Veh. Code § 21755; left‑turn rules are in Cal. Veh. Code § 21801(a)–(b).
Procedural posture: bench trial on FTCA negligence claim against the United States; court made findings of fact, assessed credibility (crediting Slaughter, discrediting plaintiff), and issued judgment for the Government.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Slaughter was negligent in making the left turn	Slaughter failed to keep proper lookout or otherwise breached duty when turning	Slaughter properly yielded, signaled, checked for traffic, and completed the turn lawfully	Slaughter was not negligent; she exercised due care and complied with § 21801(a)
Right‑of‑way allocation under Cal. Veh. Code § 21801	Plaintiff relied on subsection (a) to fault Slaughter	Defendant relied on subsection (b) to show oncoming drivers must yield once a left‑turning driver has complied with (a)	Court held § 21801(b) required plaintiff to yield after Slaughter complied with (a); plaintiff violated § 21801(b)
Legality and negligence of passing on the right/shoulder	Plaintiff effectively treated the shoulder as a merge lane to pass stopped traffic	Defendant: passing on the right via shoulder is unlawful and unsafe under § 21755	Plaintiff’s passing on the right on the paved shoulder was negligent and negligence per se; duty breached
Effect of plaintiff’s condition (brace, narcotics, speed) on negligence	Plaintiff did not contest fact of brace/medication but offered explanations	Defendant argued impairment, brace, and excessive speed increased duty of care and contributed to collision	Court found plaintiff breached duties by driving impaired, wearing restrictive brace, and speeding; these factors supported finding of sole causation by plaintiff

Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953) (federal liability under FTCA standard)
Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (1992) (state law governs FTCA negligence claims)
Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913 (1996) (elements of negligence under California law)
Hickson v. Beitel, 103 Cal. App. 2d 391 (1951) (passing on the right causing collision with lawful left turn is negligence per se)
Washam v. Peerless Automatic Staple Mach. Co., 45 Cal. App. 2d 174 (1941) (left‑turning driver not liable when another unlawfully collides with them)
Hardin v. San Jose City Lines, Inc., 41 Cal.2d 432 (1953) (violation of the basic speed law constitutes negligence)