Daily Blast - May 21, 2019 - Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

On May 20, 2019, Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal (Santa Ana) filed its opinion in Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp. (May 20, 2019, G054545)__Cal.App.5th __, analyzing whether a trial court must give every negligence per se instruction potentially relevant in a case. The Court of Appeal found that it was not necessary to give a negligence per se instruction where the evidence did not support that the alleged negligence was a proximate cause of the traffic accident at issue. (Slip opn., p. 2.) A copy of the opinion is attached.

Plaintiff Stephen Taulbee (“Taulbee”) suffered serious injuries when he crashed his Jeep into the back of a truck parked at a gore point, which is a “triangular-shaped zone demarcated by the freeway and the exit ramp.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Taulbee sued the driver and owner of the truck for negligence. (Ibid.) At trial, the judge instructed the jury that defendant could be found negligent per se for parking in the gore point, but declined to instruct the jury that defendant could be found negligent per se for driving into the gore point to park his vehicle. (Ibid.) The jury eventually found that defendant was not negligent at all. (Ibid.) Taulbee appealed contending that the trial judge should have given the jury the instruction regarding driving into the gore point. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal found that the jury instruction regarding driving into the gore point was unnecessary because the purported conduct (driving) did not proximately cause the accident. (Slip opn., p. 8.) Defendant drove his truck into the gore point five to eight minutes before Taulbee crashed into him. (Ibid.) The presence of the truck caused the accident, which was addressed in the trial court’s jury instruction regarding parking in the gore point. (Ibid.) Lastly, the Court of Appeal found that the omission of the jury instruction regarding driving into the gore point was rendered harmless when the jury concluded that defendant was not negligent when he parked in the gore point. (Id. at p. 9.) Since the jury concluded that defendant was not negligent when he parked in the gore point, it would be unreasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant was negligent when he drove into the gore point. (Ibid.)