Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligencestatuteappealtrialburden of proofjury instructions
defendantnegligencestatuteappealtrialjury instructions

Related Cases

Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 288 Ala. 43, 256 So.2d 877
View Case »
Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 575 A.2d 858
View Case »
Aronberg v. Tolbert, 207 N.J. 587, 25 A.3d 1121
View Case »
Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. Robinson, 416 S.C. 517, 787 S.E.2d 485
View Case »
Vreeland v. Ferrer, 71 So.3d 70, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S441
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Baker-Smith v. Skolnick, 37 Cal.App.5th 340, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 514, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6694, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6479

Facts

Baker-Smith was driving on the freeway when a mattress flew at her car, causing her to swerve and crash. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the mattress leave a truck towing a trailer owned by Dror Skolnick, who provided conflicting accounts about whether a mattress was in the trailer. At trial, the main argument centered on whether G&L violated the Vehicle Code section requiring cargo to be secured, with Baker-Smith claiming negligence per se. The jury ultimately found no negligence, but the instructions given to them regarding the law were flawed.

Baker-Smith was driving on the freeway when a mattress suddenly flew at her car. She veered to avoid it and hit a barrier. Two eyewitnesses chased a truck to get the license number. One called 911 with the truck's description and plate. An officer stopped that pickup, which was towing a trailer. The driver was Dror Skolnick, the owner of G&L Design Building & Landscape, Inc.

Issue

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the doctrine of negligence per se and the availability of an excuse for violating the secure-the-cargo law?

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the doctrine of negligence per se and the availability of an excuse for violating the secure-the-cargo law?

Rule

The doctrine of negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute that is designed to protect a specific class of individuals from a particular type of harm, and such violation is presumed to be negligent unless an excuse is established.

The doctrine of negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute that is designed to protect a specific class of individuals from a particular type of harm, and such violation is presumed to be negligent unless an excuse is established.

Analysis

The court determined that the jury was misinstructed regarding the excuse for violating the secure-the-cargo law. The evidence did not support the claim that Skolnick used reasonable care to ensure his trailer was empty, nor did it demonstrate that he was unable to comply with the law. The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the excuse rested with G&L, and the jury's ambiguity in their no-negligence finding could have stemmed from either believing there was no mattress or accepting Skolnick's excuse, which was legally insufficient.

The court determined that the jury was misinstructed regarding the excuse for violating the secure-the-cargo law. The evidence did not support the claim that Skolnick used reasonable care to ensure his trailer was empty, nor did it demonstrate that he was unable to comply with the law.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of G&L and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the jury instructions regarding the excuse for violating the law were erroneous and prejudicial.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of G&L and remanded the case for a new trial, stating that the jury instructions regarding the excuse for violating the law were erroneous and prejudicial.

Who won?

G&L Design Building & Landscape, Inc. prevailed at the trial level due to the jury's finding of no negligence, but this was overturned on appeal due to improper jury instructions.

G&L Design Building & Landscape, Inc. prevailed at the trial level due to the jury's finding of no negligence, but this was overturned on appeal due to improper jury instructions.

You must be