Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
51 Cal.4th 764, 248 P.3d 1170, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 (2011)
Rule of Law:
The general duty of ordinary care, codified in Civil Code section 1714(a), applies to drivers stopping their vehicles alongside a freeway, and courts should only create a categorical exception to this duty when clearly supported by public policy after balancing the Rowland v. Christian factors at a broad level of factual generality.
Facts:
- Hen Horn, a truck driver for Ralphs Grocery Company, stopped his tractor-trailer rig off the paved roadway, on the dirt shoulder of eastbound Interstate 10, to have a snack.
- Horn regularly made brief stops at this location to eat and observed an "Emergency Parking Only" sign where he stopped, approximately 16 feet from the outermost traffic lane.
- Adelelmo Cabral was driving his pickup truck home from work, eastbound on Interstate 10, when his vehicle, traveling between 70-80 mph, swerved, changed lanes rapidly, and then abruptly left the freeway.
- Cabral's pickup truck traveled parallel to the road along the adjacent dirt until it collided at high speed with the rear of Horn's stopped trailer, resulting in Cabral's death.
- A toxicology report on Cabral was negative; expert witnesses opined he either fell asleep at the wheel or lost control due to an unknown medical condition.
- There were two truck stops in the immediate vicinity of the accident site where Horn could have safely stopped.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Cabral, Adelelmo Cabral's widow, sued Ralphs Grocery Company in trial court for wrongful death, alleging employee Horn's negligence.
- Ralphs cross-complained for damage to its tractor-trailer.
- The jury found both Adelelmo Cabral and Horn negligent, with Horn assigned 10% fault and Cabral 90% fault, and awarded Maria Cabral net damages.
- Ralphs appealed the judgment on the jury verdict and the trial court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) to the Court of Appeal.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Ralphs owed no duty to Adelelmo Cabral, and therefore Ralphs was entitled to JNOV.
- Maria Cabral, the plaintiff, petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a truck driver, and by extension their employer, owe a general duty of ordinary care to avoid injury to other motorists when stopping a vehicle alongside an interstate highway for nonemergency reasons, or should a categorical exception to this duty be recognized?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No, a categorical exception to the general duty of ordinary care should not be made for drivers stopping their vehicles alongside a freeway for nonemergency reasons. California law establishes a general duty for everyone to exercise reasonable care in their activities for the safety of others (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a)). Exceptions to this general duty, as outlined in Rowland v. Christian, are only justified when clearly supported by public policy, and these factors are evaluated at a broad level of factual generality, not on case-specific details. The court found that the possibility of a vehicle parked by the side of a freeway being struck by another vehicle leaving the freeway is generally foreseeable. The connection between negligently stopping a large obstacle alongside the road and an injury from a collision is direct and close, unlike situations involving intervening third-party negligence. Public policy considerations, including preventing future harm, the lack of legal protection or encouragement for nonemergency freeway stops, and the availability of alternative stopping places, do not clearly support creating a categorical immunity. The burden on drivers to use reasonable care is not excessive, and juries are capable of assessing negligence based on specific circumstances (e.g., urgency of stop, availability of exits). Imposing this general duty does not lead to absurd expansions of liability, as courts already assess negligence for obstacles placed alongside other types of roads. The court affirmed that whether a driver breached this duty under particular circumstances is a question for the jury, not a categorical 'no-duty' rule for the court.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad application of California's general duty of ordinary care under Civil Code section 1714(a) and clarifies the stringent standard for creating categorical exceptions to this duty. It emphasizes that Rowland v. Christian factors are to be applied at a high level of generality when determining duty, thus preserving the jury's role in assessing breach based on specific facts. The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to argue a complete absence of duty for foreseeable risks and highlights the importance of public policy in limiting liability, rather than allowing courts to usurp the jury's function in negligence determinations.
