Collins

Collins v. Navistar, Inc.

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 254·214 Cal. App. 4th 1486·2013 WL 1278477
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2013No. C060468California12,002 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hoch, J.

In this strict products liability case, we consider whether the criminal nature of a juvenile’s act of throwing rocks and concrete from a freeway overpass relieves a truck manufacturer of the duty to design windshields capable of withstanding common road hazards, such as objects hitting windshields. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the criminal nature of the rock throwing does not cut off liability or negate the duty of the manufacturer to design the truck’s windshield to account for reasonably foreseeable risks. We also explain that the definition of negligence for premises liability has no application in strict products liability cases.

This action arises out of injuries plaintiff William F. Collins sustained while driving a big rig truck manufactured by Navistar, Inc. A 2.5-pound piece of concrete thrown by 15-year-old Joshua Daniel penetrated the windshield of the truck and struck William in the head. Daniel would later plead to three counts of assault with a deadly weapon or with force likely to cause great bodily injury and be sentenced to serve 12 years in prison.

*1491 William and his wife, Barbara Collins, sued various defendants, including Navistar. 1…

Concurrence in Part

Duarte, J.

I concur in the majority opinion except as to part I, I. of the Discussion, from which I respectfully dissent, as I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s error in instructing the jury resulted in prejudice to plaintiff’s case.

In my view, had there not been admitted error in the trial court’s exclusion of the glass-plastic evidence, the instructional error would be harmless due to the paucity of admissible evidence introduced by plaintiff on the issue of the foreseeability of large rocks hitting truck windshields and Navistar’s corresponding duty to design for such occurrences.

Therefore, I respectfully dissent from part I, I.

Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 17, 2013, S210583.

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.