Because Court Rejected Proposed Special Verdict Form Judgment In Jury Trial Reversed.

Defendant in an automobile accident case submitted a special verdict form that would have required the jury to consider the fault of both parties, as well as a non-party, for purposes of allocating liability for plaintiff’s noneconomic damages. According to plaintiff, she was a passenger in the back seat of a car stopped at a yield sign on the off-ramp of a freeway when defendant rear ended the car she was in.  According to defendant, the driver of the car plaintiff was in, a non-party to the action, stopped for no apparent reason after proceeding from the yield sign, and he was a cause of the accident. Defendant’s requested verdict form asked for special findings regarding: (1) whether defendant was negligent and, if so, whether her negligence was a cause of injury to plaintiff; (2) whether [the nonparty driver who defendant claimed stopped suddenly in front of her for no apparent reason] was negligent and, if so, whether his negligence was a cause of injury to plaintiff; and, if both drivers were found to be negligent, (3) the percentage of fault attributable to each driver.  The trial court rejected defendant’s special verdict form. The jury returned a special verdict finding defendant’s negligence was the cause of injury to plaintiff and that plaintiff suffered $661,000 in damages, $575,000 of which was for noneconomic loss. The appellate court reversed, finding the rejection of defendant’s special verdict form constituted prejudicial error, but in doing so, the appellate court held that “the jury’s special verdict findings are affirmed, but the judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial” regarding whether the non-party driver of the other car was a negligent cause of plaintiff’s injuries, and, if so, in what percentage. (Vollaro v. Lipsi (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; February 26, 2014)224 Cal.App.4th 93, [168 Cal.Rptr.3d 323].)