Negligent Per Se: New Trial Granted In Auto v. Truck Action.

Plaintiffs brought an action against a truck driver and trucking company following injuries sustained in a traffic accident. There was evidence the truck was in both lanes as it maneuvered a turn, and there was also evidence the 18-year-old plaintiff and his friend were looking at a laptop when the plaintiff collided with the truck. In the ensuing negligence action, the jury returned a verdict finding the truck driver was negligent but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiffs. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the verdict is fatally flawed because “a finding of causation flows automatically from the negligence finding.” The appellate court found the special verdict was neither inconsistent nor unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the collision was caused by plaintiff’s inattentiveness to the road ahead of him rather than any act of negligence committed by the truck driver. Nonetheless, the appellate court noted that since the trial court expressly found the truck driver was negligent per se, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion for new trial. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. (David v. Hernandez  (Cal. App. Second, Div. 6; May 22, 2014)226 Cal.App.4th 578, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 204].)