In Lawson et al. v. Safeway Inc. et al., (Case No. A125209) the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District) affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs and held that the driver of a legally parked tractor-trailer truck owes a duty of care to those injured in an accident when the tractor-trailer truck obstructs the vision of other motorists.
A Safeway tractor-trailer was parked legally on the side of U.S. Highway 101, close to an intersection near Crescent City, blocking the view of oncoming traffic. A driver in a pick-up truck attempting to cross over and merge onto the 101 subsequently collided with motorcyclists Charles and Connie Lawson. The Lawsons filed suit for personal injuries against Safeway, the driver of the Safeway truck, the driver of the pickup, and the State of California. At trial, a jury awarded substantial damages to the plaintiffs and apportioned 35 percent fault to Safeway, 35 percent to the State of California, and 30 percent to the driver of the pickup.
The primary issue on appeal was whether the driver of the Safeway truck owed a duty of care to those injured in the accident when legally parked. In finding that a duty existed, the court applied the long standing test for the existence of a duty, noting:
"The principal consideration in deciding whether a duty is owed is the foreseeability of the harm (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 740), which "'is not to be measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful [person] would take account of it in guiding practical conduct" (Bigbee v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 49, 58).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict in favor of plaintiffs and held that Safeway owed a duty to park safely, as well as legally, because of the particular facts of this case, where the parked vehicle was a 65 feet long, 13 1/2 feet tall, 8 1/2 feet wide, and the evidence showed that: the drivers of such trucks are or should be professionally trained to be aware of the risk of blocking other drivers' sight lines when parking; the truck was parked at a high-speed well-traveled intersection; and a safe parking spot was available right around the corner.
In analyzing the issue of foreseeability, the Court held that "it is readily foreseeable that parking a large, commercial truck near an intersection may obstruct the views of passing motorists and cause them to collide." While the Court acknowledged that "drivers should ordinarily have no exposure to liability if they are legally parked" and "parked vehicles often obstruct views in ways that increase the risk of nearby collisions, and that liability would not be appropriate in the great majority of such situations," it nonetheless determined that "this case is different and involves a situation where the risk of foreseeable harm was, in our view, unreasonable."
Notably, the California Supreme Court is presently deciding the case of Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery (Case No. S178799) ("Cabral"). In Cabral, the defendants' tractor-trailer truck was illegally parked in an "Emergency Parking Only" area on the side of a freeway when plaintiff lost control of his vehicle and collided with the rear of the defendants' tractor-trailer, dying on impact. The Fourth Appellate District held that the driver of the tractor-trailer truck owed no duty of care to freeway motorists not to park for non-emergency reasons in an "Emergency Parking Only" area at the side of a freeway. The Court of Appeal also held that the act of parking in the "Emergency Parking Only" area was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries.
While Cabral remains under review, the significance of the Court's ruling in Lawson is considerable as it effectively creates an affirmative duty for truck drivers to account for the sight lines of passing vehicles, regardless of the legality of the parking location. Transportation companies should instruct their drivers to seek parking locations that remain a safe distance from active thoroughfares, particularly with adjacent intersections.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
