Ruling on Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.November 2, 2015

123 23561 378401583 562400020067960 5 890113454 219 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, MINUTE ORDER TIME: 08:59:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Roger Picquet COUNTY OF VENTURA VENTURA DATE: 03/03/2016 DEPT: 40 CLERK: Christine Schaffels REPORTER/ERM: CASE NO: 56-2015-00474024-CU-PA-VTA CASE TITLE: Thomas Hayzlett Jr vs Express Messenger Sys CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Auto EVENT TYPE: Ruling on Submitted Matter STOLO APPEARANCES STOLO Stolo The Court, having previously taken the Demurrer (2/23/16) under submission, now rules as follows: Defendant demurrers to First, Second and Third causes of action based on Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.112 and to the Third cause of action on the grounds that there is no such cause of action. Plaintiff responds that Defendant can figure out which cause of action applies to Ontrac and, further, addresses the merits of the causes of action. The court may not consider the merits or lack of merits of a cause of action on a Demurrer. The issue of whether collateral damage is a proper cause of action is all the Court may address as to merits. The court finds that the first two causes of action are deficient under Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 2.112 in that there the complaint fails to identify as to which Defendant(s) each particular cause of action is directed. The court finds further that the Third cause of action fails to state a legal theory upon which relief can be granted. The Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend. The Court, having previously taken the Motion to Strike (2/23/16) under submission, now rules as follows: Given the court's ruling on the Demurrer, this Motion to Strike could be considered moot. However, in the interest of providing direction to the parties the court will proceed to rule. A. Police report. VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/03/2016 Page 1 DEPT: 40 CASE TITLE: Thomas Hayzlett Jr vs Express Messenger Sys CASE NO: 56-2015-00474024-CU-PA-VTA Veh. Code § 20013. Reports as evidence "No such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident, except that the department shall furnish upon demand of any person who has, or claims to have, made such a report or upon demand of any court, a certificate showing that a specified accident report has or has not been made to the department solely to prove a compliance or failure to comply with the requirement that such a report be made to the department." The report is not being offered at trial but is simply included in a pleading. Defendant's argument regarding privacy rights is not persuasive as the case and statute relied upon indicates that a police report is not completely protected: Veh. Code § 20012. Confidentiality of reports "All required accident reports, and supplemental reports, shall be without prejudice to the individual so reporting and shall be for the confidential use of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol, except that the Department of the California Highway Patrol or the law enforcement agency to whom the accident was reported shall disclose the entire contents of the reports, including, but not limited to, the names and addresses of persons involved or injured in, or witnesses to, an accident, the registration numbers and descriptions of vehicles involved, the date, time and location of an accident, all diagrams, statements of the drivers involved or occupants injured in the accident and the statements of all witnesses, to any person who may have a proper interest therein, including, but not limited to, the driver or drivers involved, or the guardian or conservator thereof, the parent of a minor driver, the authorized representative of a driver, or to any named person injured therein, the owners of vehicles or property damaged thereby, persons who may incur civil liability, including liability based upon a breach of warranty arising out of the accident, and any attorney who declares under penalty of perjury that he or she represents any of the above persons." (Boldface added.) Pleadings are not evidence and are not presented to a trier of fact at trial. (B). Punitive damages. "... the negligence of an agent is the negligence of the principal. "[A] principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of business of the agency ... ." (Civ. Code, § 2338.) In short, "[t]he acts of an agent are, in legal effect, the acts of the principal, and notice or knowledge of a fact to a principal or an agent is deemed as notice to the other party." (Hall v. Rockcliff Realtors (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 1134, 1140.) Plaintiff has clearly alleged an agency relationship. Pleading punitive damages: In Clauson v. Superior Court (1988) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, the Plaintiffs filed a mandate petition challenging the trial court's order striking punitive damage allegations in their complaint against defendants related to unlawful wiretapping and common law invasion of privacy. The court stated at 1255: VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/03/2016 Page 2 DEPT: 40 CASE TITLE: Thomas Hayzlett Jr vs Express Messenger Sys CASE NO: 56-2015-00474024-CU-PA-VTA "In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff [citations omitted]. In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth [citations omitted]." Plaintiff alleges (in brief): That he lost his right leg as a result of an accident caused by when the Ontrac driver driving a company (Ontac) van and that the Ontrac driver fled the scene. The Ontrac driver was employed as an independent contractor but Ontrac is liable. The driver fled to Mexico. Ontrac lied to the police and purposely allowed video of Ontrac's premises to be destroyed. Plaintiff will pursue bad faith insurance claim when ripe. Civ. Code sec. 3294(c) states: Malice "means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." Oppression "means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights." Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895 involved the sufficiency of punitive damages allegations. "In order to justify an award of punitive damages on [the basis of conscious disregard for the rights of others], the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences." Taylor was driving under the influence case. G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, states, "When the plaintiff alleges an intentional wrong, a prayer for exemplary damage may be supported by pleading that the wrong was committed willfully or with a design to injure [citations omitted]. When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant's conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice." (at 29.) "Although the circumstances in a particular case may disclose similar willful or wanton behavior in other forms, ordinarily, routine negligent or even reckless disobedience of traffic laws would not justify an award of punitive damages." (Taylor at 899.). "Despicable conduct is conduct that is "'"... so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people."' [Citation.] 'Such conduct has been described as "[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime." [Citation.] As well stated in Flyer's Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1154 [230 Cal.Rptr. 276]: "[A] breach of a fiduciary duty alone without malice, fraud or oppression does not permit an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] ... Punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. The mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages. ... Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff's rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate."' [Citation.]" (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050-1051 VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/03/2016 Page 3 DEPT: 40 CASE TITLE: Thomas Hayzlett Jr vs Express Messenger Sys CASE NO: 56-2015-00474024-CU-PA-VTA [117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 685].) "Thus, in order to sustain the punitive damages award, the evidence must leave no substantial doubt that Phoenix engaged in despicable conduct, or conduct intended to cause injury to Scott. "'Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or "malice," or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called wilful or wanton.' [Citation.] "The only evidence of wrongful conduct directed toward Scott was her termination for an improper reason. This evidence was insufficient to support a finding of despicable conduct, because such action is not vile, base or contemptible. Nor do we find this evidence shows a conscious and deliberate disregard of plaintiff's interests. "Conscious disregard of rights is conduct by a defendant who is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of such conduct to plaintiff's interests and wilfully and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences." (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 702, 715-716.) Plaintiff's allegations of Ontrac's willful and conscious disregard and allegations that Ontrac was aware of the consequences are insufficient at this time. RULING The Motion to Strike as to Ontrac is DENIED as to the police report and is GRANTED as to the issue of punitive damages with leave to file a motion to amend after discovery. Clerk to give notice. STOLO VEN-FNR-10.03 MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/03/2016 Page 4 DEPT: 40