Ortiz v. Daimler Truck N. Am. LLC

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BOULWARE EURIE, J.
• Citation: 334 Cal.Rptr.3d 200
• Docket Number: C100034
• Decision Date: 24 June 2025
• Parties: Ariel De Jesus ORTIZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DAIMLER TRUCK NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

334 Cal.Rptr.3d 200

Ariel De Jesus ORTIZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.DAIMLER TRUCK NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

C100034

Court of Appeal, Third District. (Butte).

Filed June 24, 2025

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County, Tamara L. Mosbarger, Judge. Reversed. (Super. Ct. No. 21CV00759)

Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Michael von Loewenfeldt, San Francisco, Jocelyn Sperling; Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, Michael A. Kelly and Andrew McDevitt, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Polsinelli, David K. Schultz, J. Alan Warfield, Los Angeles; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Philip R. Cosgrove and Ryan E. Cosgrove, Torrance, for Defendant and Respondent.

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

Plaintiffs’ mother was killed when a commercial truck traveling over 55 miles per hour rear-ended her car at a red light. Plaintiffs afterward sued the truck manufacturer, Daimler Trucks North America LLC (Daimler Trucks). Raising design defect and negligent design claims, they alleged that Daimler Trucks should be held liable for their mother’s death because it failed to equip the truck with a collision avoidance system, called Detroit Assurance 4.0, that would have prevented this fatal accident. That system warns drivers when it detects a collision risk with a stationary object, including stopped traffic, and can stop the truck on its own when the driver fails to act. Daimler Trucks included Detroit Assurance 4.0 in some, but not all, of its trucks when it built the truck here.

We consider on appeal the trial court’s ruling, on summary judgment, that plaintiffs’ claims failed as a matter of law. The trial court based its ruling on two issues: proximate cause and duty of care. But we find neither issue supported the court’s decision. Starting with proximate cause, the trial court alluded to two potential causes of the accident: the truck’s allegedly defective design in omitting Detroit Assurance 4.0, and the truck driver’s failure to brake to avoid stopped traffic. The court then indicated that it found the driver, and not the allegedly defective design, to be the proximate cause of the mother’s death. But a single injury can have multiple proximate causes. And deciding who should be found a proximate cause of an injury is typically a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law to be resolved on summary judgment. In this case, plaintiffs do not dispute that the truck driver was a proximate cause of their mother’s death. But they allege that the truck’s defective design was a proximate cause too. And considering their evidence—including evidence showing Detroit Assurance 4.0 serves to prevent these very types of accidents—we conclude that proximate cause should have remained a question for the jury, as is ordinarily the case.

Turning to duty, plaintiffs assert that manufacturers have a general duty to install reasonable safety devices. Daimler Trucks does not disagree. But it argues (and the trial court appeared to agree) that an exception to this duty should exist for a certain category of safety devices—namely, collision avoidance systems. We find differently. Endorsing the trial court’s rule would mean that manufacturers would have no duty to install these safety features, even if they were undeniably inexpensive, feasible, and effective at preventing accidents and saving lives. Rather than find manufacturers never have a duty to install collision avoidance systems, no matter the underlying facts, we find it best to retain a duty of care in this context. That is not to say that commercial truck manufacturers have a duty to install collision avoidance systems in every case, as Daimler Trucks fears. It is to say only that they must exercise due care when choosing whether to install these systems. Whether Daimler Trucks breached that duty here is an issue outside the scope of this appeal. Finding none of Daimler Trucks’ asserted grounds for summary judgment persuasive, we will reverse the trial court’s judgment against plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND

I Fatal Truck Accidents and Collision Mitigation Systems

Large commercial trucks play a major role in fatal multi-vehicle accidents. Several considerations suggest why, according to one of plaintiffs’ experts. These trucks are far heavier, and generally stiffer, than the average vehicle—resulting in their delivering far greater forces in an accident than the average vehicle. They are also more difficult to stop and maneuver to avoid a collision. And their drivers drive longer hours than an average driver, creating more opportunities for collisions and a greater risk of driver fatigue. Federal authorities estimate that over 5,000 people are killed each year in collisions involving large trucks.

The commercial truck industry has developed several safety features to prevent or mitigate these collisions. Two involve forward collision warnings and automatic emergency braking. Describing these safety features in 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)¹ wrote: These “systems use forward-looking sensors, typically radars and/or cameras, to detect vehicles in the roadway. When a rear-end crash is imminent, the [forward collision warning] system warns the driver of the threat. If the driver takes no action, such as braking or steering, or if the driver does brake but not enough to avoid the crash, a [crash imminent braking] or [automatic emergency braking] system may automatically apply or supplement the brakes to avoid or mitigate the rear-end crash.” Noting that these systems “have the potential to save lives by preventing or reducing the severity of rear-end crashes,” NHTSA found it appropriate in 2015 to study these technologies further and to consider requiring these technologies on certain heavy vehicles. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Automatic Emergency Braking, 80 Fed.Reg. 62487 (Oct. 16, 2015).)

Around the same time, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)² wrote 30 vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler Trucks, about these safety systems. It recommended that Daimler Trucks “[i]nstall forward collision avoidance systems that include, at a minimum, a forward collision warning component, as standard equipment on all new vehicles.” It also recommended that Daimler Trucks install systems meeting NHTSA’s performance standards for automatic emergency braking once those standards are established. NTSB noted that these recommendations “are designed to prevent accidents and save lives.”

Two years later, in a 2017-2018 report, NTSB further endorsed implementation of these technologies. It wrote: “Humans make mistakes, even in transportation. Transportation operators must always walk a demanding line of alertness and vigilance, but collision avoidance technologies can provide a lifesaving safety net. Technologies such as collision warning and autonomous emergency braking in highway vehicles … will result in fewer accidents, fewer injuries, and fewer lives lost. These technologies are available today. They should be implemented today.”

II Daimler Trucks and Detroit Assurance 4.0

Daimler Trucks manufactures commercial trucks. One of its trucks is called Freightliner Cascadia (Cascadia). The Cascadia is a commercial truck that can weigh up to 80,000 pounds when pulling a loaded trailer. To give some context, the average passenger car weighs 4,000 pounds. The Cascadia’s heavy size matters in an accident. Because it can weigh 20 times as much as the average passenger car, it can deliver 20 times the kinetic energy of an average passenger car in an accident. To put it another way, when a car is rear-ended by a Cascadia weighing 80,000 pounds, it is like being hit by 20 passenger cars—all at once.

Since 2009, Daimler Trucks has offered collision avoidance systems on its vehicles. In 2015, it began offering a collision avoidance system called Detroit Assurance 2.0—which includes both forwarded collision warning and automatic emergency braking—as an optional feature in its trucks. Later, in January 2017, it began offering a more advanced forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking system called Detroit Assurance 4.0— though, still, only as an optional feature.

Detroit Assurance 4.0 can track up to 40 objects at once, up to 825 feet in front of the truck, and refreshes its speed, distance, and time calculations 200 times per second. To prevent collisions with stationary objects, including stopped traffic, Detroit Assurance 4.0 will first initiate visible and audible alarms. If the driver fails to respond, it will then initiate further visible and audible alarms and pulse the brakes. And if the driver still fails to respond, it will then autonomously slow the truck using the transmission, engine brake, and service brake. Detroit Assurance 4.0 can fully brake for stationary objects in the truck’s path. It can also autonomously engage in the brakes when a pedestrian moves into the truck’s path.

Daimler Trucks has called Detroit Assurance 4.0 “life-saving technology” that could “reduc[e] crashes, reduc[e] injuries, and ultimately save lives.” Citing the system’s safety features, Daimler Trucks announced in March 2018 that Detroit Assurance 4.0 would be a standard feature on all new Cascadia truck models going forward. But since that time, it has still allowed customers to opt out of including this feature. Opting out lowers the vehicle costs, though the specific amount of this reduction is unclear. While Daimler Trucks has attributed a sticker price of $4,324 to Detroit Assurance 4.0, record evidence suggests that it actually has charged half that—“2,000 plus,” in one witness’s telling. Whatever the price, the charge is a small fraction of a Cascadia’s base price.

III Lupe Ortiz’s Death

A truck dealership ordered a new Cascadia in January 2018. While aware of Detroit Assurance 4.0, it did not include this feature in its purchase. Daimler Trucks built the truck in August 2018 without Detroit...