|
View Case
|
|
Cited Cases
|
|
Citing Cases
|
|
Comment (1)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HARTT v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
MALLORY ANNE HARTT, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. B220270.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven.
Filed July 13, 2011.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSWOODS, J. INTRODUCTIONThis is an action filed as a wrongful death claim arising out of an accident on a road in the Deane Dana Friendship Park on March 24, 2008. The decedent, one Steven Hartt ("Hartt"), a retired police officer, was riding his bicycle in the park which is located in an area of the Palos Verde Peninsula containing hills and an upper and lower portion. The accident occurred on a road which connects the upper and lower areas of the park. While bicycling from the upper area to the lower area, Hartt collided with a County-owned vehicle traveling in the opposite direction of Hartt. The vehicle was owned by the County of Los Angeles and operated by one Rickey Deshon Miller ("Miller"),1 indisputably a County employee. The vehicle is described as a GM pickup truck. It is undisputed that Miller was in the course and scope of his employment as a park maintenance worker at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs and appellants are the survivors of Hartt, namely Mallory Anne Hartt, Bret Sean Hartt and David Brooks Hartt, surviving wife and sons of the decedent respectively. Unless context requires otherwise, the surviving Hartts will be referred to herein as "the Hartts." Judgment was entered upon a jury verdict in favor of County and Miller, after trial on the sole issue of liability. The Hartts contend that the trial court erred in making numerous rulings before, during and following the verdict which deprived them of a fair trial. Fast forwarding to the "Conclusion" section of appellants' opening brief, they state "This verdict was a clear miscarriage of justice and is not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. The court prejudicially hamstrung the Plaintiffs by improperly granting summary adjudication and then proceeded to exclude numerous items of evidence that would have (or at least very probably could have) lead to a different result. "The Plaintiffs remaining cause of action for negligence was also doomed by the exclusion of photographic evidence that clearly established Miller's wanton lack of due care that lead to the death of Plaintiffs decedent, Steven Hartt. Given the gravity of the matter the Plaintiffs should have been permitted [to] present the truth to the jury about the nature of the road and Miller's conduct. "The court indicated that this should be a `trial of evidence'. Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs it was anything but that. . . ."
1. Unless context dictates otherwise, the defendants County of Los Angeles and Rickey Deshon Miller will most generally be referred to hereafter as the County.
2. Power Lite Rentals, Inc. is not a party in the appeal, having been previously dismissed from the action in the trial court.
3. Code of Civil Procedure section 598 states: "The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof in the case, except for special defenses which may be tried first pursuant to Section 597 and 597.5. The court, on its own motion, may make such an order at any time. Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof, and the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon such issue so tried is in favor of any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, judgment in favor of such party shall thereupon be entered and no trial of other issues in the action as against such party shall be had unless such judgment shall be reversed upon appeal or otherwise set aside or vacated.
"If the decision of the court, or the verdict of the jury upon the issue of liability so tried shall be against any party on whom liability is sought to be imposed, or if the decision of the court or the verdict of the jury upon any other issue or part thereof so tried does not result in a judgment being entered pursuant to this chapter, then the trial of the other issues or parts thereof shall thereafter be had at such time, and if a jury trial, before the same or another jury, as ordered by the court either upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party, and judgment shall be entered in the same manner and with the same effect as if all the issues in the case had been tried at one time."
4. The record reflects that this is an inaccurate statement. In County's "First Amended Answer of Defendant County of Los Angeles to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint," filed May 14, 2009, County pled as its 29th affirmative defense as follows: "29. Plaintiffs' complaint, and the whole thereof, is barred by recreational path immunity pursuant to Government Code § 831.4."
|
|
|
|
|