Spriesterbach

Spriesterbach v. Holland

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 306·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 272·215 Cal. App. 4th 255·2013 WL 1409408
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 9, 2013No. B240348California7,550 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

This appeal arises out of a collision between a bicycle ridden by plaintiff Micheál Spriesterbach and a car driven by defendant Janice Holland. Spriesterbach sued Holland for negligence, alleging that he suffered a serious shoulder injury as a result of the collision. The jury returned a verdict for Holland, finding by special verdict that she was not negligent.

Spriesterbach appeals from the resulting judgment and denial of his motion for new trial, urging that the trial court made two prejudicial instructional errors. Because we conclude that neither alleged error was prejudicial, we affirm.

*259 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Background

On March 10, 2010, Spriesterbach left Santa Monica College (SMC) and began riding home on his bicycle. Initially, he rode on the right-hand (south) side of National Boulevard, traveling in the same direction as the vehicular traffic. When he got to the intersection of National Boulevard and Barrington Avenue, he crossed to the sidewalk on the opposite (north) side of National Boulevard, where he continued to travel east. As he approached a supermarket parking lot on his left, he saw a car, driven by Holland, stopped at the…

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.