Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MINUTES
August 24, 2021 Department: 302
DAVID NGUYEN, Case Number: CGC-19-576056
PLAINTIFF, Nature of Cause: Hearing Re:
Defendants Sherman Wright, Ford
VS. Motor Company, and Chariot Transit,
Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment
SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, et al., Or In The Alternative Summary
Adjudication.
DEFENDANTS.
Present:
Judge: ETHAN P. SCHULMAN Clerk: SEAN KANE
Reporter: MARIA TORREANO,
CSR No. 8600, Email:
maria.torreano@gmail.com
Appearances (via Zoom videoconference): Appearing for Defendant(s):
tty. ERIC A. FORSTROM, Esq. of First Law Atty. LISA T. OMOTO, Esq. of Haight
Group, APC (Tel: 626-838-5700) for plaintiff Brown & Bonesteel LLP (Tel: 213-542-8000)
David Nguyen for defendants Sherman Lewis Wright, Ford
Motor Company, and Chariot Transit, Inc.
Matter argued and submitted. The Court adopts its tentative ruling.
Defendants’ (SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and CHARIOT
TRANSIT, INC.) motion for summary judgment is granted.
In this vehicle accident case, plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care and
caused plaintiff’s injuries. Whether a defendant breaches its duty of care is usually an issue for
the trier of fact to resolve. (See Musgrove v. Ambrose Properties (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 44, 53
[“Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the jury; if the circumstances permit a reasonable
Case Number: CGC-19-576056
Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL
-1- Date: August 24, 2021
Form: C01006
doubt whether the defendant’s conduct violates the standard of due care, the doubt must be
resolved by the jury as an issue of fact rather than of law by the court.”].) Moreover, the Court
liberally construes the evidence in favor of plaintiff, as the party opposing summary judgment.
(See Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.)
Nevertheless, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment where it demonstrates that plaintiff’s
claim cannot be established and the plaintiff fails to create a triable issue of material fact. “A
party can obtain summary judgment only by establishing the merit of his [or her] case ‘as a
matter of law.’ (... § 437c, subd. (c).) The phrase ‘as a matter of law’ is another way of saying
that the evidence available to the parties, and placed before the court in support of and in
opposition to the motion, raises no material issue that a trier of fact could resolve in favor of the
party opposing the motion.” (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 756.)
“There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable
trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the [plaintiff] in accordance with the applicable
standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)
Defendants assert that Mr. Wright initiated his left turn once the light turned red and the
intersection was clear. (Wright Decl., par. 6; Defendants’ Appendix of Evidence, Ex.4 (dashcam
video.) Defendants aver that as a matter of law Mr. Wright complied with his duty of care under
Vehicle Code Section 21801(a) by making his turn “with reasonable safety.”
The Court admits the dashcam video into evidence. Plaintiff fails to show that defendants
“willfully” withheld evidence such that exclusion of it on this motion is warranted. (See Thoren
v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 275 [court could exclude testimony from
witness where interrogatory response that failed to identify witness was “willfully false”]; Biles
v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1324 [error to exclude witness testimony
where no showing that party willfully failed to supplement discovery response that was truthful
when provided].) Here, plaintiff merely establishes that “Defendants' ‘dash cam video’ was
never produced as part of a verified document Production.” (Forstrom Decl., ¶ 5.) The evidence
is admitted because plaintiff makes no showing that defendant willfully withheld the video.
Based on the Court’s review of the dashcam video, the Court agrees with defendants that no
reasonable trier of fact could find that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care. The video shows
that Mr. Wright entered the intersection while the light was yellow, executed the left turn when
the light was red and the oncoming cars had stopped, and plaintiff ran the red light and collided
with defendants’ vehicle. Under these circumstances, defendants cannot be liable as a matter of
law and plaintiff essentially concedes the same. (See Defendants’ Appendix of Evidence, Ex.6
(Plaintiff’s Depo: 69:13-70:1; 70:20-71:15).) The Court further finds that Mr. Wright’s
ambiguous statements to Officer Siracusa fail to create a triable issue of material fact in light of
all of the evidence in the record. (See Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372, 379 [where the
plaintiff’s version of what happened “quite clearly contradicts” what videotape evidence showed,
there was no genuine issue of material fact, absent allegations that the video was altered];
Swigart v. Bruno (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 529, 553, fn 4 [“[t]o the extent that [plaintiff’s]
witnesses’ testimony was inconsistent with the video, we do not consider such inconsistency a
disputed fact and have relied on the evidence in the video.”].)
Case Number: CGC-19-576056
Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL
-2- Date: August 24, 2021
Form: C01006
“Where a car has actually entered an intersection before the other approaches it, the driver of the
first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass
through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of
the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be
necessary to prevent a collision.” (Leblanc v. Cloverdale (1931) 213 Cal. 654, 658.) A left-
turning driver is not liable “[i]f another driver, by reason of his violation of a statutory provision,
or by reason of other negligent conduct, collides with him.” (Washam v. Peerless Automatic
Staple Mach. Co. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 174, 178.) “[E]very person has a right to presume that
every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable
ground to think otherwise it is not negligence to assume that he is not exposed to danger which
comes to him only from violation of law or duty by such other person.” (Dickinson v. Pacific
Greyhound Lines (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 824, 827.)
Plaintiff argues that Mr. Wright was negligent per se because he did not have the correct type of
driver’s license on the date of the incident. (See Evid. Code sec. 669.) Negligence is a
rebuttable evidentiary presumption and to trigger that presumption, plaintiff must show that
“[t]he violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property.” (Evid Code §
669(a)(2); CACI 418.) Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate how improper licensure was a
proximate cause of the accident, especially in light of the dashcam video that shows that Mr.
Wright was driving his vehicle in a safe manner and the accident was caused by plaintiff running
the red light.
Order signed.
Case Number: CGC-19-576056
Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL
-3- Date: August 24, 2021
Form: C01006
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MINUTES August 24, 2021 Department: 302 DAVID NGUYEN, Case Number: CGC-19-576056 PLAINTIFF, Nature of Cause: Hearing Re: Defendants Sherman Wright, Ford VS. Motor Company, and Chariot Transit, Inc.'s Motion For Summary Judgment SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, et al., Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication. DEFENDANTS. Present: Judge: ETHAN P. SCHULMAN Clerk: SEAN KANE Reporter: MARIA TORREANO, CSR No. 8600, Email: maria.torreano@gmail.com Appearances (via Zoom videoconference): Appearing for Defendant(s): tty. ERIC A. FORSTROM, Esq. of First Law Atty. LISA T. OMOTO, Esq. of Haight Group, APC (Tel: 626-838-5700) for plaintiff Brown & Bonesteel LLP (Tel: 213-542-8000) David Nguyen for defendants Sherman Lewis Wright, Ford Motor Company, and Chariot Transit, Inc. Matter argued and submitted. The Court adopts its tentative ruling. Defendants’ (SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC.) motion for summary judgment is granted. In this vehicle accident case, plaintiff alleges that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care and caused plaintiff’s injuries. Whether a defendant breaches its duty of care is usually an issue for the trier of fact to resolve. (See Musgrove v. Ambrose Properties (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 44, 53 [“Breach of duty is usually a fact issue for the jury; if the circumstances permit a reasonable Case Number: CGC-19-576056 Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL -1- Date: August 24, 2021 Form: C01006 doubt whether the defendant’s conduct violates the standard of due care, the doubt must be resolved by the jury as an issue of fact rather than of law by the court.”].) Moreover, the Court liberally construes the evidence in favor of plaintiff, as the party opposing summary judgment. (See Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.) Nevertheless, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment where it demonstrates that plaintiff’s claim cannot be established and the plaintiff fails to create a triable issue of material fact. “A party can obtain summary judgment only by establishing the merit of his [or her] case ‘as a matter of law.’ (... § 437c, subd. (c).) The phrase ‘as a matter of law’ is another way of saying that the evidence available to the parties, and placed before the court in support of and in opposition to the motion, raises no material issue that a trier of fact could resolve in favor of the party opposing the motion.” (Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 756.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the [plaintiff] in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Defendants assert that Mr. Wright initiated his left turn once the light turned red and the intersection was clear. (Wright Decl., par. 6; Defendants’ Appendix of Evidence, Ex.4 (dashcam video.) Defendants aver that as a matter of law Mr. Wright complied with his duty of care under Vehicle Code Section 21801(a) by making his turn “with reasonable safety.” The Court admits the dashcam video into evidence. Plaintiff fails to show that defendants “willfully” withheld evidence such that exclusion of it on this motion is warranted. (See Thoren v. Johnson & Washer (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 270, 275 [court could exclude testimony from witness where interrogatory response that failed to identify witness was “willfully false”]; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1324 [error to exclude witness testimony where no showing that party willfully failed to supplement discovery response that was truthful when provided].) Here, plaintiff merely establishes that “Defendants' ‘dash cam video’ was never produced as part of a verified document Production.” (Forstrom Decl., ¶ 5.) The evidence is admitted because plaintiff makes no showing that defendant willfully withheld the video. Based on the Court’s review of the dashcam video, the Court agrees with defendants that no reasonable trier of fact could find that Mr. Wright breached his duty of care. The video shows that Mr. Wright entered the intersection while the light was yellow, executed the left turn when the light was red and the oncoming cars had stopped, and plaintiff ran the red light and collided with defendants’ vehicle. Under these circumstances, defendants cannot be liable as a matter of law and plaintiff essentially concedes the same. (See Defendants’ Appendix of Evidence, Ex.6 (Plaintiff’s Depo: 69:13-70:1; 70:20-71:15).) The Court further finds that Mr. Wright’s ambiguous statements to Officer Siracusa fail to create a triable issue of material fact in light of all of the evidence in the record. (See Scott v. Harris (2007) 550 U.S. 372, 379 [where the plaintiff’s version of what happened “quite clearly contradicts” what videotape evidence showed, there was no genuine issue of material fact, absent allegations that the video was altered]; Swigart v. Bruno (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 529, 553, fn 4 [“[t]o the extent that [plaintiff’s] witnesses’ testimony was inconsistent with the video, we do not consider such inconsistency a disputed fact and have relied on the evidence in the video.”].) Case Number: CGC-19-576056 Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL -2- Date: August 24, 2021 Form: C01006 “Where a car has actually entered an intersection before the other approaches it, the driver of the first car has the right to assume that he will be given the right of way and be permitted to pass through the intersection without danger of collision. He has a right to assume that the driver of the other car will obey the law, slow down, and yield the right of way, if slowing down be necessary to prevent a collision.” (Leblanc v. Cloverdale (1931) 213 Cal. 654, 658.) A left- turning driver is not liable “[i]f another driver, by reason of his violation of a statutory provision, or by reason of other negligent conduct, collides with him.” (Washam v. Peerless Automatic Staple Mach. Co. (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 174, 178.) “[E]very person has a right to presume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable ground to think otherwise it is not negligence to assume that he is not exposed to danger which comes to him only from violation of law or duty by such other person.” (Dickinson v. Pacific Greyhound Lines (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 824, 827.) Plaintiff argues that Mr. Wright was negligent per se because he did not have the correct type of driver’s license on the date of the incident. (See Evid. Code sec. 669.) Negligence is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption and to trigger that presumption, plaintiff must show that “[t]he violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property.” (Evid Code § 669(a)(2); CACI 418.) Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate how improper licensure was a proximate cause of the accident, especially in light of the dashcam video that shows that Mr. Wright was driving his vehicle in a safe manner and the accident was caused by plaintiff running the red light. Order signed. Case Number: CGC-19-576056 Case Title: DAVID NGUYEN VS. SHERMAN LEWIS WRIGHT ET AL -3- Date: August 24, 2021 Form: C01006