Victor v. Hedges
91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's violation of a statute creates a presumption of negligence only if the resulting injury is of the nature the statute was designed to prevent. For common law negligence, liability requires that an ordinarily prudent person would have foreseen that the defendant's conduct subjected the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of the specific type of harm that occurred.
Facts:
- Michael Hedges parked his Ford Explorer on the sidewalk in front of his apartment building to show Stephani Lynn Victor his new compact disk player.
- Hedges and Victor were standing on the sidewalk at the rear of the parked vehicle.
- The adjacent street, Hermosa Avenue, was under construction, with a single traffic lane, gravel, bumps, and potholes.
- Mark Williams was driving a van on Hermosa Avenue when he looked down at his tape deck for approximately two seconds.
- As a result of his inattention, Williams's van drifted to the right, hit the curb, and blew its tires.
- The van continued onto the sidewalk and struck Victor and Hedges's parked Explorer, causing serious injury to Victor.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephani Lynn Victor sued Michael Allen Hedges and Thermtech, Inc. in a California superior court (trial court) for negligence.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Victor filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Victor (appellant) appealed the entry of summary judgment and the denial of her new trial motion to the California Court of Appeal.
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 defendant who parks a vehicle on a sidewalk in violation of a statute owe a duty of care to protect a plaintiff standing nearby from the harm of being struck by a negligent third-party driver who veers off the road?
Opinions:
Majority - Dau, J.
No. A defendant who parks a vehicle on a sidewalk does not owe a duty of care to protect against the unforeseeable risk of a third party's negligent driving. The court rejected both of Victor's negligence theories. First, regarding negligence per se, the court analyzed Vehicle Code section 22500(f), the statute prohibiting parking on a sidewalk. It concluded the statute was designed to prevent (1) obstruction of pedestrian traffic, (2) injuries from pedestrians walking into the vehicle, and (3) injuries from the parked vehicle being put into motion. It was not designed to prevent the 'freakish' occurrence of being struck by a different, third-party vehicle that drives onto the sidewalk. Since the harm was not of the nature the statute was designed to prevent, a presumption of negligence did not apply. Second, regarding ordinary negligence, the court found that Hedges's conduct did not create an 'unreasonable risk of harm.' An ordinarily prudent person in Hedges's position, despite knowing about the general road construction, would not have foreseen the specific risk that a distracted driver would lose control, mount the curb, and strike a person on the sidewalk. Absent a special relationship or the creation of a foreseeably dangerous condition, Hedges had no duty to protect Victor from such an unforeseeable event.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical role of foreseeability in establishing a duty of care and clarifies the 'type of harm' analysis for negligence per se. By narrowly interpreting the purpose of the sidewalk parking statute, the court limited the application of negligence per se to harms directly contemplated by the legislature, such as obstruction, rather than attenuated, unforeseeable events. The ruling also distinguishes between a defendant creating a dangerous condition (like placing a phone booth near a highway) and merely being a but-for cause of a plaintiff's presence at a location where an independent negligent act occurs. This strengthens the principle that liability does not attach for freak accidents that an ordinary person would not anticipate, even if the defendant's actions were technically unlawful.
