Rodas v. Dep't of Transp.

• Decision Date: 11 August 2021
• Docket Number: D078583,D078581
• Parties: CRUZ VIDAL AREVALO RODAS et al., as Personal Representatives, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent. CRUZ VIDAL AREVALO RODAS et al., as Personal Representatives, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

CRUZ VIDAL AREVALO RODAS et al., as Personal Representatives, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Respondent.

CRUZ VIDAL AREVALO RODAS et al., as Personal Representatives, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant and Appellant.

D078581, D078583

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

August 11, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from an amended judgment and a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. 1-14-CV- 267867 James L. Stoelker, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Santa Clara Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI § 6 of the Cal. Const.) In D078583, plaintiff's cross-appeal dismissed, amended judgment affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. In D078581, postjudgment order vacated and appeal dismissed.

Jeanne Scherer and Erin E. Holbrook, Chief Counsel, G. Michael Harrington, Deputy Chief Counsel, Lucille Y. Baca, Assistant Chief Counsel, David Sullivan, Derek S. VanHoften, Layla Labagh for Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent.

Buty & Curliano, Jason J. Curliano and Ondrej Likar, for Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant.

IRION J.

Case No. D078583 is an appeal and a cross-appeal from an amended judgment following a jury trial. The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the appellant and cross-respondent; and Cruz Vidal Arevalo Rodas & Gladys H. Ascencio Carpio, as personal representatives of the Estate of Kevin Josue Rodas Carpio, are the respondents and cross-appellants. Case No. D078581 is an appeal from a postjudgment order. Cruz Vidal Arevalo Rodas & Gladys H Ascencio Carpio, as personal representatives of the Estate of Kevin Josue Rodas Carpio, are the appellants, and Caltrans is the respondent. The two appellate cases have been consolidated for all purposes.

I. INTRODUCTION

Early one morning in January 2014, 17-year-old Kevin Carpio was walking to school in Sunnyvale. He was walking on a sidewalk next to the Lawrence Expressway, and as he crossed an onramp to southbound U.S. 101 in a marked crosswalk, a car being driven by Patrick Aubin (the driver) struck him. Sadly, Carpio suffered catastrophic injuries and, during the pendency of this appeal, passed away.^[1]

Plaintiff filed the underlying action against Caltrans and others, which resulted in a substantial judgment against Caltrans. As relevant to this appeal, Plaintiff alleged that the intersection of the Lawrence Expressway and the onramp to U.S. 101, as well as the surrounding area, constituted a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835.^[2] At trial, Caltrans's principal defense was the design immunity provided by section 830.6. This statutory defense reflects a legislative intent to insulate discretionary planning and design decisions by responsible public officials from review in tort litigation. (Baldwin v. State of California (1972) 6 Cal.3d 424, 434.) At trial, Plaintiff's principal reply to this defense was that, regardless of dangerous condition(s) associated with the design of the interchange and surrounding area, the evidence supported a finding of non-design-related dangerous conditions created by Caltrans under section 835, subdivision (a)-i.e., a dangerous condition not subject to section 830.6's design immunity. More specifically, Plaintiff contended that the following negligent acts by Caltrans, unrelated to design, resulted in dangerous conditions which caused substantial harm to Plaintiff: the failure to maintain the pedestrian crosswalk and surrounding area; and the failure to warn of a concealed dangerous condition at the crosswalk.

As we explain in our de novo review of Caltrans's appeal from the judgment (D078583), the jury's answers to the special verdict form are inconsistent as to Caltrans. We cannot tell whether the award of damages was based on a dangerous condition that was negligently designed (and, thus, subject to § 830.6 immunity) or based on a failure to maintain the area surrounding the roadway interchange (and, thus, not subject to § 830.6 design immunity) or based on a dangerous condition that resulted from a failure to warn of the dangerous condition. The trial court interpreted the jury's special verdict to allow both for immunity to Caltrans for dangerous conditions associated with the design of the crosswalk and the surrounding area and for liability and damages against Caltrans based on dangerous conditions the court considered not associated with the design of the crosswalk (viz., failure to warn or failure to maintain). In doing so, the court erred, because from the jury's answers to the questions on the special verdict, there is no way of knowing: (1) which, of multiple, conditions the jury found to be dangerous for purposes of section 835; and, therefore, (2) whether such dangerous condition(s) allowed for the application of the design immunity defense by Caltrans (§ 830.6) or for liability against Caltrans (§ 835).

As we also explain, the court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's cross-appeal from the judgment (D078583), because Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the judgment, and there is no postjudgment order from which he could have filed a protective cross-appeal. Nonetheless, we have deemed the arguments in Plaintiff's cross-appellant's opening brief as part of his respondent's brief in Caltrans's appeal from the judgment and have deemed the arguments in Caltrans's cross-respondent's brief as part of its reply brief in its appeal from the judgment.

Finally, Plaintiff appealed from a postjudgment order in which the trial court denied Plaintiff's motion to enforce the terms of Caltrans's elected periodic payment schedule (D078581). As we explain, because the judgment against Caltrans from which the periodic payments are to be made will be reversed, the order regarding enforcement of periodic payments under the judgment is moot.

Accordingly, in the parties' appeals from the judgment (D078583), we will dismiss the cross-appeal; reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial as to Caltrans; and otherwise affirm the judgment. In Plaintiff's appeal from the postjudgment order (D078581), we will vacate the order and dismiss the appeal.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Accident

At the intersection of the Lawrence Expressway and U.S. 101 in Sunnyvale, there is an onramp to southbound U.S. 101 from the northbound Lawrence Expressway.^[3] Both highways have four lanes going in each direction, and the onramp has three lanes, each of which can be accessed from a fifth “exit only” lane on the far righthand side of the northbound Lawrence Expressway. More than 20 feet into the onramp to U.S. 101 off the Lawrence Expressway is a marked pedestrian crosswalk which connects the sidewalk along the east side of the expressway on both sides of the onramp.^[4]

The accident occurred in the crosswalk shortly before 7:00 a.m. on a dark wet morning in January 2014. Plaintiff, then 17 years old, was walking to school on the sidewalk adjacent to the northbound Lawrence Expressway. As he crossed the onramp to U.S. 101 in the marked crosswalk, he was struck by a car and seriously injured.

The driver of the car that hit Plaintiff was a 24-year-old man who had just finished his work as a security guard-a shift that began at 10:00 p.m. the evening before the accident and ended at 6:45 a.m. the morning of the accident. Minutes after leaving work, as the driver proceeded north on the Lawrence Expressway near the U.S. 101 interchange, due to darkness, rain, and fog, the driver had turned on both the headlights and windshield wipers of his car.

The driver had driven this route previously and was familiar with it. On that stretch of the Lawrence Expressway, the speed limit was 50 miles per hour, and he was travelling at a rate of approximately 45 miles per hour. As he approached the onramp to southbound U.S. 101, the driver signaled, moved over to the far right exit lane, and decreased the vehicle's speed to approximately 35 miles per hour. From his familiarity with the route and the signage, the driver was aware of pedestrians on the sidewalk and the crosswalk on the onramp, although he previously had never seen a pedestrian in the crosswalk or in the general vicinity of the crosswalk.

As the driver prepared to enter the onramp to U.S. 101, he was paying “full attention” to driving as safely as he could and did not see anything in the roadway. In the “split second” before the impact of striking Carpio-who was walking in the crosswalk-the driver realized that something was in front of him. Only after Carpio hit the driver's windshield and the driver pulled over and got out of his car to see what had happened did the driver realize that his car had struck Carpio. Carpio suffered catastrophic injuries, leaving him in what an expert at trial described as “a persistent or permanent vegetative state” following “a very severe... traumatic brain injury.”

B. The Pleadings

Plaintiff filed the underlying action against Caltrans, the City of Sunnyvale, the County of Santa Clara, the driver, and the owner of the vehicle that struck him. In the first cause of action, Plaintiff alleged negligence against the driver and the owner of the vehicle. In the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleged a dangerous condition of public property against Caltrans, the city, and the county.

All that is before us in this appeal is Plaintiff's cause of action against Caltrans. The allegations against Caltrans include:

• Caltrans “owned, operated, designed, constructed maintained, inspected, repaired, cleaned, and controlled the intersection, pedestrian crosswalk and surrounding area at the [property] at the...