Medina v. City of Fontana
Yader Castro Rivas (Castro), an unlicensed 15-year old driver, was on Cypress Avenue in Fontana when he decided to pass the car ahead of him. Even though Cypress was a key route to and from A.B. Miller High School, the particular portion he was on had no sidewalks. As he swerved to the left, he realized that he was about to hit a student walking on the pavement. He therefore accelerated to about 60 miles an hour and swerved to the right. He went into a skid, shut his eyes, locked his brakes, and hit two other students walking on the right side of the street. One of them Karen Medina was killed.
Karen Medinas parents, Cruz Medina and Agueda Miranda (plaintiffs), filed this wrongful death action against the City of Fontana (the City). They dismissed other named defendants including Castro and his parents, Walter Grande and Claudia Rivas before trial. The City, however, cross complained against Castro and his parents.
A jury, by special verdict, found the City liable on a theory of a dangerous condition of public property. (Gov. Code, 835.) It further found both Castro and his parents liable on a theory of negligence. It fixed the amount of plaintiffs damages at $37.5 million. It apportioned 75 percent of the liability for these damages to the City, 25 percent to Castros parents, and zero percent to Castro.
The trial court denied the Citys motion for new trial with respect to liability but granted it with respect to the amount and the apportionment of damages.
Plaintiffs appeal, contending:
1. The trial court erred by granting the Citys motion for new trial with respect to the apportionment of damages.
2. The trial court erred by granting the Citys motion for new trial with respect to the amount of damages.
The City cross appeals, contending:
1. The City, as a matter of law, cannot be held liable for the failure to make capital improvements such as sidewalks.
2. Plaintiffs failed to prove that the lack of sidewalks created a substantial risk of injury when the street was used with due care.
3. The trial court erred by allowing plaintiffs expert to testify that a dangerous condition existed.
4. The jurys apportionment of damages is unsupported by the evidence.
5. The jurys award of damages is excessive as a matter of law.
Court find no error with respect to the finding that the City is liable. We also find no error with respect to the order granting a new trial on the apportionment of damages. Court do agree with plaintiffs that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the amount of damages, because it failed to file a timely statement of reasons. Nevertheless, Court agree with the City that the amount of damages is excessive as a matter of law.
Comments on Medina v. City of Fontana