Nixon-Egli Equipment v. Superior Court CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2016E064305California1,981 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The underlying lawsuit is a personal injury action brought by Rui Costa against

petitioners. Costa was at work on a highway construction site when the heavy equipment

vehicle he was assisting ran over him, severing both legs, one at the hip and the other just

below the hip. Petitioners are the owners/manufacturers/sellers of the vehicle, described

as a “pavement grinder” or “road-milling machine.”

1 Costa’s wife is also a plaintiff, suing for loss of consortium. For convenience, we will generally refer to Costa as plaintiff in the singular.

All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 In its motion, Coast presented three grounds on which the motion should be

granted. First, that as the contractor that hired Costa’s employer to perform work on the

project, it was immune from liability under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th

689 (Privette) and therefore even a modest payment must be deemed to have been in

good faith. Second, that because the statute of limitations had run and plaintiff had not

sued Coast, as a matter of law Coast could not be liable for any damages. Third, that as a

matter of fact Coast bore…

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.