Bianco v. California Highway Patrol
Decision Date | 03 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. D019372,D019372 |
Citation | 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 711,24 Cal.App.4th 1113 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Steven W. BIANCO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, Defendant and Respondent. |
Daniel E. Lundgren, Atty. Gen., Martin H. Milas and Jack T. Kerry, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and respondent.
Steven W. Bianco, in propria persona, appeals from the denial of his second amended petition for writ of mandate in which he challenged (1) generally, the authority of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to determine which motorcycle helmets are approved and unapproved under the state's mandatory helmet law (VEH.CODE, §§ 278021 and 27803) and (2) specifically, a bulletin issued by the CHP that stated the "beanie" helmet manufactured by E & R Fiberglass, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, (E & R Fiberglass), failed to meet minimum standards as required by section 27802. Bianco contends the trial court made numerous errors in its findings of facts and there was no basis for denying his cross-complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief.
California's mandatory motorcycle helmet law (§§ 27802 and 27803) went into effect on January 1, 1992. Section 27803, as amended in 1991, provides:
Section 27802 provides:
"(a) The department may adopt reasonable regulations establishing specifications and standards for safety helmets offered for sale, or sold, for use by drivers and passengers of motorcycles and motorized bicycles as it determines necessary for the safety of those drivers and passengers. The regulations shall include, but are not "(b) No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by a driver or passenger of a motorcycle or motorized bicycle any safety helmet which is not of a type meeting requirements established by the department."
limited to, the requirements imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.218) and may include compliance with that federal standard by incorporation of its requirements by reference. Each helmet sold or offered for sale for use by drivers and passengers of motorcycles and motorized bicycles shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the federal standard which shall constitute the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Department as used in section 27802 refers to the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (§§ 290, 24000.)
In his verified second amended petition for writ of mandate, Bianco alleges that he purchased a helmet manufactured by E & R Fiberglass with the intent to comply with the helmet law. The helmet bore a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) self-certification sticker applied by the manufacturer.
In April 1992, at the direction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2 two independent testing laboratories prepared reports on whether the E & R Fiberglass's beanie motorcycle helmet met the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 218 (FMVSS 218). Each of the laboratory reports showed the helmet failed to meet the requirements of FMVSS 218. The NHTSA sent copies of the test reports to the CHP.
On June 1, 1992, the CHP issued an information bulletin (Bulletin No. 34) that read as follows:
After the issuance of Bulletin No. 34, Bianco, while wearing the E & R Fiberglass helmet, was cited twice by the CHP for violating section 27803. (On April 4, 1993, Bianco received a third CHP citation for violating the helmet law as alleged in his verified "Cross-Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" filed April 8, 1993.)
In a June 10, 1992, letter to the NHTSA, the business manager of E & R Fiberglass, stated the firm's intention to comply with NHTSA's request to recall the beanie helmets.
On August 19, 1992, NHTSA issued a Consumer Advisory press release that announced the recall of the beanie helmets by E & R Fiberglass.
On April 29, 1993, the trial court held a hearing on Bianco's second amended petition for writ of mandate in which the parties presented testimony and documentary evidence and argued their respective positions. The following day, the trial court issued its decision by minute order (1) denying Bianco's petition for writ of mandate, (2) striking Bianco's cross-complaint and (3) denying his motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions.
On May 17, 1993, the trial court signed a "Judgment Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate" in which the court made the following findings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClain v. Kissler
...parties are entitled to no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys"]; Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125–1126, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 711 [" ‘When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration......
-
In re Valerie A.
...record the portions of the reporter's transcript relevant to appellant's issues on appeal. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 711.) Antonia did not provide the record transcript of June 22, 2006 post-permanency planning review hearing. Thus......
-
Price v. Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist.
...142 ["Issues not raised in the appellant's opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned"]; Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 711 [appellant bears burden of proving prejudicial error].)At oral argument, Price's counsel argued that we should ......
-
Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, s. 95-55946
...of compliance." Id. at 622, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d at 745 (emphasis in original). In a subsequent case, Bianco v. California Highway Patrol, 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 711 (1994), a motorcyclist challenged a CHP bulletin that had declared that a helmet manufactured by E & R Fiberglass did ......
-
Table of cases
...383, §§12:31.2, 12:40.1, 12:43.1 Betyar v. Pierce (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1250, §11:162 - AR - F-3 Table of Cases Bianco v. CHP (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, §2:17.2 Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) 579 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160, §§1:17, 2:85, 7:66.5(b)(i), 7:66.5(b)(ii), 7:66.5(b)(iii), 7:66.5......
-
Additional charges
...so, even if it doesn’t actually comply. D.O.T. stickers are often put on the outside of the helmet, at the rear. Bianco v. CHP (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, holds that a motorcycle rider who rides with a helmet that is not D.O.T. certified is in violation of the mandatory helmet laws (VC §§27......