Garcia

Garcia v. Superior Court

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 342·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 292·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2644·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1928
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 2006B186981California3,574 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

A self-propelled piece of machinery fell off a dump truck while in the process of being transported as freight from one place to another. The owner, who was operating the device, was injured. We conclude that Proposition 213 (Civ. Code, § 3333.4) does not limit the owner’s right to compensation for noneconomic damages.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The underlying facts are essentially undisputed, although there are sharp differences in the inferences and legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts. Following is a summary of what happened, as described by both sides in briefing before the trial court and this court.

The petitioner, Juan F. Garcia, owned a Snorkel International Snorkelift Articulating Telescoping Boom, which all parties and we refer to as a Snorkelift. The device is used to access places that are otherwise difficult to reach, such as a ceiling light bulb that is beyond reach of a ladder. It is mounted on four wheels, battery driven, and can reach a speed of four and one-half miles per hour. It is not designed for highway use. Garcia had the device at his home, in Pomona, parked on the street. He advertised it for sale. Robert Weinberger, a principal…

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.