Spriesterbach v. Holland
215 Cal. App. 4th 255
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Spriesterbach, a bicyclist, was struck by Holland while Holland was exiting a Ralphs parking lot onto National Blvd; Spriesterbach suffered a left shoulder injury requiring surgery and incurred about $80,000 in medical expenses.
- Spriesterbach sued Holland for negligence and motor vehicle liability; Holland denied and asserted 11 affirmative defenses including his own contributory negligence.
- The jury found Holland not negligent by special verdict; judgment entered against Spriesterbach and his motion for new trial was denied.
- At trial, expert witnesses disputed Holland’s speed and visibility; King reconstructed Holland’s speed and visibility, while Jansen opined on perception-reaction time.
- The trial court refused to give a negligence-per-se instruction under § 21804 and instructed on § 21650.1 as applying to sidewalk riding; Spriesterbach appeals these instructional rulings.
- The appellate court affirms, holding: (a) no prejudicial error from not instructing negligence per se under § 21804; (b) the § 21650.1 instruction was erroneous as a matter of law but not prejudicial to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence per se under § 21804 | Spriesterbach argues Holland’s violation mandates negligence per se. | Holland argues § 21804 does not automatically create per se negligence without showing failure to act as a reasonable person. | Not prejudicial; jury would have found Holland not negligent even with the instruction. |
| Effect of § 21804 instruction on the verdict | The jury would have answered Holland negligent if per se instruction given. | Burden would not shift absent proof of statutory violation excused or justified. | No prejudicial effect; verdict would be same. |
| § 21650.1: sidewalk riding as negligence per se | Riding on sidewalk against traffic flow violated § 21650.1 per se. | Statutory interpretation would not require sidewalk riding to follow vehicle traffic; such riding is not on a roadway. | Instruction erroneous; not prejudicial because Spriesterbach’s own negligence issue never reached the jury. |
| Prejudice from erroneous § 21650.1 instruction | Error likely influenced jury to treat sidewalk riding as negligence per se. | Instructions overall directed duty of care to all directions; argument did not mislead. | Not prejudicial; jury did not consider Spriesterbach’s negligence and special verdict remained not negligent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickison v. La Thorpe, 124 Cal.App.2d 190 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1954) (duty when entering highway from private property; question of fact if disobedience justified)
- Wilkins v. Sawyer, 232 Cal.App.2d 458 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 1965) (immediate hazard and excusal/justification of disobedience to a statute)
- Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539 (Cal. 1993) (negligence per se presumption elements under Evid. Code § 669)
- Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn., 114 Cal.App.4th 208 (Cal. App. Dist. 6 2003) (negligence per se elements; burden-shifting)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (standard for determining if jury was misled by instructions)
- McKay v. People, 27 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2002) (21650.1 applicability; wrong-way riding on roadway as valid basis for stop)
- Devon C., 79 Cal.App.4th 929 (Cal. App. Dist. 4 2000) (helmet statute; sidewalk as highway; statutory interpretation context)
- Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal.4th 1193 (Cal. 1994) (appropriateness of reviewing jury instructions)