Navarrete v. Meyer
188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1276, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 539 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger who verbally encourages a driver to engage in dangerous and unlawful conduct, such as an exhibition of speed, may be held jointly liable for resulting harm under theories of concert of action, civil conspiracy, and willful interference with the driver's control of the vehicle.
Facts:
- Hayley Meyer, a passenger in a vehicle driven by her friend Brandon Coleman, suggested he take a shortcut down Skyview Drive, a residential street.
- Meyer knew Skyview Drive had dips that would cause a car to become airborne if traveling at a high rate of speed.
- Meyer told Coleman about the dips, said it was 'fun' to drive fast on them, and that he should do it.
- Shortly after turning onto the street, Meyer told Coleman to 'go faster.'
- Coleman asked another passenger, Levi Calhoun, if he should speed up, and Calhoun advised against it.
- Coleman accelerated to approximately 70-81 miles per hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone.
- The vehicle became airborne over the dips, causing Coleman to lose control and collide with a parked vehicle.
- Esteban Soto, who was standing by the parked vehicle attempting to place his child in a car seat, was struck and killed.
Procedural Posture:
- Miriam Navarrete and her children sued Brandon Coleman and the County of Riverside in the Superior Court of Riverside County (trial court).
- Navarrete filed a first amended complaint naming Hayley Meyer as a defendant, alleging violation of Vehicle Code § 21701 and civil conspiracy.
- Meyer moved for summary judgment, arguing her actions did not constitute interference or conspiracy as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Meyer.
- Navarrete, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
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 passenger's verbal encouragement to a driver to speed on a road the passenger knows has conditions that will cause the vehicle to become airborne create a triable issue of material fact for joint liability under theories of concert of action, civil conspiracy, and statutory willful interference?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Rourke, J.
Yes. A passenger's verbal encouragement to a driver to speed on a road known to cause cars to become airborne creates a triable issue of material fact for joint liability. A jury could find that Meyer is jointly liable for Coleman's conduct under three separate theories. First, under a concert of action/aiding and abetting theory, Meyer's actions could constitute aiding and abetting an unlawful 'exhibition of speed' in violation of Vehicle Code § 23109, as her encouragement provided 'substantial assistance' to Coleman's tortious conduct. Second, under a civil conspiracy theory, a jury could infer a tacit agreement between Meyer and Coleman to commit a wrongful act (the exhibition of speed), making her vicariously liable for the resulting harm. Third, Meyer's conduct could constitute 'willful interference' with the driver under Vehicle Code § 21701, as 'interference' is not limited to physical acts and includes intentional actions that affect the driver's control, which is necessarily diminished when a vehicle becomes airborne.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the potential scope of passenger liability in California tort law. It clarifies that liability is not confined to physical interference but can arise from verbal encouragement, especially when the passenger possesses superior knowledge of a specific, unusual danger. The court's broad interpretation of 'exhibition of speed' and 'willful interference' lowers the barrier for plaintiffs to bring claims against passengers who incite reckless driving. This precedent establishes that encouraging a driver to perform a dangerous stunt can be a basis for joint tortfeasor liability, affecting how future cases involving passenger influence on driver behavior are litigated and decided.
