Is There A Duty Of Care To Secure Cargo To Prevent Tragedy On The Highway?

A CHP officer stopped a car, and the two were parked on the right shoulder of a freeway. Meanwhile, another man was proceeding along the freeway with two dirt bikes strapped inside his truck bed. The bikes were strapped down by employees of a motorsports dealership. The bikes were “hopping around a little bit,” and the truck driver glanced over his shoulder to assess the situation. As he did, he steered his truck to the right and into the car parked on the shoulder, killing the driver and partially paralyzing the CHP officer. The driver of the truck pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and was sentenced to 15 years in state prison. The CHP officer and his wife as well as the decedent’s mother sued the truck driver and the motorsports dealership for negligence and wrongful death. A jury assigned 67% of the fault to the truck driver and 33% to the dealership and awarded a total of $49.6 million to plaintiffs. After remitters, the court entered judgment for $14.84 million against the truck driver and $7.3 million against the dealership, and against both defendants jointly and severally for $13.01 million. The truck driver settled with all plaintiffs and the dealership settled with decedent’s relatives, so the sole remaining plaintiffs are the CHP officer and his wife and the sole defendant is the dealership. On appeal, were the issues of the dealership’s duty of care, who should decide whether the truck driver’s negligence was a superseding cause and an expert witness’s testimony.  The appellate court held:  “Does a commercial vendor owe a duty of care to persons on or near the roadway who are injured as a result of the vendor’s negligence in loading and securing cargo in a vehicle in a way that distracts the vehicle’s driver? Applying the controlling principles of California law, we conclude that such a duty of care exists and that a categorical ‘no duty’ exception for vendors should not be created. We also hold that the driver’s negligence in driving under the influence of marijuana does not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law; instead, the issue of superseding cause is one for the jury. We nevertheless determine that the trial court abused its discretion in not striking, for lack of foundation, expert testimony that the driver in this case was a ‘chronic’ marijuana user and thus, unlikely to be impaired. Because the driver’s impairment was crucial to the allocation of fault between the driver and vendor, we vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.” Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 1; May 15, 2013) (As Mod. June 12, 2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 359, [156 Cal.Rptr.3d 673].