Pedeferri

Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises

Good Law
163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 379·216 Cal. App. 4th 359·2013 WL 2144769
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2013B233542California7,278 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hoffstadt, J.

Does a commercial vendor owe a duty of care to persons on or near the roadway who are injured as a result of the vendor’s negligence in loading and securing cargo in a vehicle in a way that distracts the vehicle’s driver? Applying the controlling principles of California law, we conclude that such a duty exists and that a categorical “no duty” exception for vendors should not be created. We also hold that the driver’s negligence in driving under the influence of marijuana does not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law; instead, the issue of superseding cause is one for the jury. We nevertheless determine that the trial court abused its discretion in not striking, for lack of foundation, expert testimony that the driver in this case was a “chronic” marijuana user and thus unlikely to be impaired. Because the driver’s impairment was crucial to the allocation of fault between the driver and vendor, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial on liability and damages.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. The Accident

This case arises from a tragic accident that partially paralyzed plaintiff Anthony Pedeferri, a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer, and took…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.