David v. Fancher
Filed 6/22/06 David v. Fancher CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| RICHARD DAVID et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAMES FANCHER et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B180367 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC078916) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John L. Segal, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Martin L. Stanley and Martin L. Stanley for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Richardson, Bambrick, Cermak & Fair and Mary T. Dybens for Defendants and Respondents.
______________________________________________
This case arises out of a three-car automobile accident. The driver and passenger of the second car sued the drivers of the first and third cars for injuries they allegedly suffered in the accident. The plaintiffs settled with the driver of the first car. During the course of settlement negotiations, plaintiffs' counsel drafted a declaration for the driver of the first car to sign, which implied that the driver of the third car was liable. The driver of the first car refused to sign the declaration, and the settlement was consummated without it. Plaintiffs proceeded to trial solely against the driver of the third car. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding she was not negligent. The plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the driver of the first car to testify to the contents of the declaration plaintiffs' counsel had drafted, and the circumstances in which it had been submitted to him for his signature. We conclude the testimony should not have been admitted; however, plaintiffs have failed to establish the error was prejudicial. We also reject plaintiffs' contention the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause to two prospective jurors. We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Three cars were involved in an accident in the early evening on December 21, 2002. It was lightly raining. The lead car was driven by Arthur Spiwak. The road on which he was driving had two lanes in each direction, and a two-way left-turn lane in the center.[1] Spiwak intended to enter a mini-mall to his left, so he brought his car to a stop in the left-turn lane and waited for opposing traffic to pass. He had been stopped for approximately one minute when his car was hit from behind by the vehicle driven by Richard David. Rulla Katelanis, who is now married to David, was David's passenger.
Spiwak was uninjured, as was his son, who was sitting in the back seat with a friend. David immediately put his car into reverse. Spiwak's son stated, â€
