Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. D031575.,D031575. |
| Citation | 81 Cal.App.4th 287,96 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | David MENDOZA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CLUB CAR, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
Tosdal, Levine, Smith & Steiner and Thomas Tosdal, San Diego, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Robert L. Kaufman, Jules S. Zeman and Teresa M. Wainman, Santa Monica, for Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Club Car, Inc. (CCI), a manufacturer of electric golf carts, appeals from a products liability judgment entered against it following a bifurcated trial on liability and damages. This action arises out of an accident involving a CCI golf cart whose parking brake allegedly spontaneously released, causing plaintiff David Mendoza (Mendoza) to suffer serious injuries, including a broken neck.2 Judge Peter E. Riddle presided over the liability phase and Judge Thomas O. Lavoy over the damages phase of the trial. This appeal is taken solely from the portion of the judgment finding CCI liable.
CCF's appeal is based on four contentions related to the liability phase of the trial. First, the court erred in finding an inconsistency in the special verdict, instructing the jury on that issue, and directing the jury to deliberate further to clear up the inconsistency. Second, the court erred by not granting CCI's motion for new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct based on the fact an alternate juror was seated during deliberations and the verdict was rendered 49 minutes later. Third, the court erred by failing to instruct the jury to disregard all testimony and documents relating to other problems with golf cart brakes that had previously been withdrawn from evidence. Last, CCI contends insufficient evidence exists to find a design defect in the golf cart or that the defect caused Mendoza's injuries.
Mendoza and his wife, Delores, also appeal from the judgment, contending that if the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, certain evidentiary rulings should be reversed. Specifically, Mendoza contends the court erred in refusing to admit documents relating to other alleged brake failures on CCI golf carts, and evidence of tests by Mendoza's expert, Reuben Volmer (Volmer), on a CCI golf cart.
Rejecting CCI's contentions, we affirm the judgment. The Mendozas' appeal is thus moot.
At the time of the accident in December 1995, Mendoza was 50 years old and a district manager for Kragen Auto Company. On that date he and three acquaintances were playing golf at Steele Canyon. The foursome rented two CCI-manufactured electric golf carts. The subject cart, labeled cart No. 112, was part of a leased fleet of CCI carts delivered to Steele Canyon in February 1995.
Mendoza rode in a CCI golf cart along with one other member of the foursome. Mendoza knew he was responsible for any damage to the cart. Steele Canyon had a policy of charging customers who negligently caused damage to its golf carts.
Mendoza's injury occurred on the canyon course, a nine-hole course with steep, hilly terrain. Shortly before the accident, Mendoza parked the cart on the dirt cart path adjacent to a hillside, at the bottom of which is a dry creek bed. Mendoza "pushed hard" on the parking brake pedal, locking it in the down position.3 The cart path where the cart was parked sloped steeply enough that the cart would have immediately commenced rolling if the parking brake had not been engaged.
Mendoza exited the cart to help his golfing partner O'Hara look for his ball. The cart was stationary when he got out. As they were sitting in their cart, the two other members of the foursome, John and Bill Watkins, observed Mendoza's cart parked and stationary after he exited.
John and Bill Watkins are experienced golfers. Their family had owned a CCI golf cart, and the Watkins brothers had rented golf carts on numerous prior occasions. They were familiar with the sound made by a released parking brake on CCI carts.
A few minutes after Mendoza left his cart, John and Bill Watkins both heard the distinctive sound of the parking brake releasing on Mendoza's cart. The cart began moving slowly down the cart path.
John Watkins alerted Mendoza his cart was going down the hill. Mendoza, who was down the slope and about 10 yards behind the cart, attempted to retrieve it. The cart originally proceeded down the path. When the path veered to the right, the cart went down the hillside on the left and began to pick up speed.
Halfway down the hillside, Mendoza caught up with the cart. He intended to jump in and apply the brakes. Mendoza grabbed a roof strut with his left hand. However, believing the cart was "going too fast," Mendoza "chickened out" and decided "to let it go."
About that time, the cart hit a depression, causing the wheels to suddenly turn left into Mendoza, The cart threw Mendoza into the air and onto the large rocks in the creek bed.
As a result of the accident, Mendoza suffered multiple fractures of the spinal vertebrae and a spinal cord injury in the neck region.
Mendoza sued CCI for strict products liability, negligence and breach of warranty. The causes of action for negligence and breach of warranty, as well as the punitive damages claim on the products liability cause of action, were dismissed at trial upon CCI's motion for nonsuit. Mendoza's wife brought a claim for loss of consortium.4
CCI's design engineer testified regarding the braking system design on the golf cart. The parking brake is operated by engagement of a pawl with a latch. When the parking brake pedal is depressed, the narrow tip of the pawl fits into one of six teeth in the latch, depending on how hard the parking brake pedal is depressed. The pawl is connected to the parking brake pedal by linkages. The latch is also connected to the accelerator pedal by linkages. The linkage to the accelerator is mounted on two plastic bearing blocks on the undercarriage of the cart. When the parking brake is set, the depth of the engagement of the pawl is approximately one-tenth of an inch. The pawl and latch are designed to be movable.
To prevent the latch and pawl from unintentionally disengaging, the direction of the force exerted by the pawl upon the latch goes directly through the center of rotation of the accelerator pivot shaft, to which the latch is attached by linkages. If the force is directed rearward of that point, a rotational force is created that moves the latch rearward (as if the pedal is depressed) and the parking brake can spontaneously release. The harder the brake pedal is pushed and the deeper the tooth is engaged, the more force is generated, the more load on parts and the greater the tendency of the pawl to push away and the parking brake to spontaneously disengage.
Mendoza's expert, Volmer, a registered mechanical and safety engineer, testified a design defect in the cart's braking system caused the parking brake to fail on the date of the accident. Volmer testified the close tolerance of the latch and pawl made it easy for a number of different factors to cause the latch and pawl to not match up at the correct angle and redirect force rearward, causing the brake to release. The factors include wear, adjustment, load on the linkages, alignment and/or deflection of parts.
Volmer's inspection of the subject cart revealed clearance between the shaft and block and wear on the latch and pawl. These factors could affect the direction of force on the latch and pawl.
The Mendozas also presented evidence suggesting the condition of the braking system on the cart was altered after the accident. Between the time of the accident and inspection by Mendoza's expert, Steele Canyon's mechanic washed the parking brake assembly with high power water and air hoses and removed the brake drums. The mechanic sprayed the moving and nonmoving parts of the entire brake assembly with thick black graphite, purportedly for lubrication and preservation. According to Mendoza's expert, the graphite has no anticorrosion benefits and served no lubrication purpose by the manner in which it was sprayed. He testified the effect of the graphite spraying was to cover up oxidation and tool marks on the parking brake parts. When Volmer removed the latch, he was unable to tell if the latch had moved on its pad because there was graphite between the latch and pad. Volmer opined the parking brake assembly had been altered after the accident.
At trial, the court admitted five documents evidencing prior complaints of failure of braking systems in CCI golf carts, for the limited purpose of showing notice of the brake problem to CCI. One document was a letter from an individual named Buck Williams (the Williams letter), stating the parking brake on a CCI cart failed, causing the cart to roll and Williams to suffer property damage. The remaining four were CCI warranty documents indicating parking brakes on carts would not hold.
However, following the court's grant of CCI's motion for directed verdict on Mendoza's negligence claim, the court also granted CCI's request that the five documents not be allowed as evidence and not be argued in closing argument or provided to the jury during deliberations.
During deliberations, the jury asked a question about the Williams letter: The court conferred telephonically with counsel regarding the note. Although no supporting evidence appears in the record, CCI claims it requested the court to instruct the jury that all five documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missakian v. Amusement Indus., Inc.
...verdicts, and inconsistencies between special findings rendered in support of a general verdict." ( Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 303, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 ; Trejo, supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 124, fn. 5, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 127.) Here, we are determining whether two speci......
-
McCoy v. Gustafson
...ambiguous or inconsistent verdict. (Woodcock, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 456; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 61918; Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 303 (Mendoza) [trial judge may be obligated to require the jury to correct or clarify a potentially ambiguous verdict, and its re......
-
San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding
...inconsistent with each other. "[A] special verdict's correctness must be analyzed as a matter of law." (Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal. App.4th 287, 303, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 605; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 285, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 596.) Other principles......
-
Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Company
...where noneconomic damages for purportedly similar injuries ranged from $1 million to $8.4 million. (Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 605 [50-year-old plaintiff — award of $1 million]; Niles v. City of San Rafael (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 116 Cal. Rptr. 733......
-
Products Liability Update - May 2012 - Part 2
...a manufacturer owes no duty to prevent injuries resulting from unforeseeable and accidental product misuse"); Mendoza v. Club Car, 81 Cal.App.4th 287 (2000) (Jury finding that product was not being used in reasonably foreseeable way was inconsistent with liability verdict); Johnson v. Ameri......
-
Update On California Civil Jury Instructions Concerning Products Liability Litigation
...a manufacturer owes no duty to prevent injuries resulting from unforeseeable and accidental product misuse"); Mendoza v. Club Car, 81 Cal.App.4th 287 (2000) (Jury finding that product was not being used in reasonably foreseeable way was inconsistent with liability verdict); Johnson v. Ameri......
-
Table of cases
...Cal. 2d 537, 219 P.2d 1, §6:60 Mendez, People v. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 680, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49, §9:100 Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 287, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 605, §22:230 Mendoza v. Gomes (1956) 143 Cal. App. 2d 172, 299 P. 2d 707, §20:60 Mendoza, People v. (2016) 62 Cal. 4th......
-
Submission to jury and deliberations
...the court has any doubts, it may send the jury out, with proper instructions, to correct the verdict. Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 287, 302, 96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 605. If the defect is obvious, the court must attempt to cure the defect. Mendoza v. SUBMISSION TO JURY & DELIBE......