SUGLIA v. LIFESTYLE CUSTOM CYCLES, LLC
SHERYL SUGLIA, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LIFESTYLE CUSTOM CYCLES, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents.
No. E049208.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two.
Filed November 18, 2010.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSOPINIONRICHLI, J.
IINTRODUCTIONIn a motorcycle accident caused by a drunk driver, plaintiff and appellant Sheryl Suglia suffered severe injuries, including amputation of her left leg. Her husband, Kerry Suglia, was killed. Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet, NexL Sports Product (NexL), and the retailer, defendants and respondents, Mark Skolnick, Jr. (Skolnick) and Lifestyle Custom Cycles, LLC (Lifestyle). The jury found NexL was 100 percent liable for negligent misrepresentation and did not find any liability on the part of the Lifestyle defendants.
Our review of the record, such as it is, discloses significant problems with causation and no error in the jury verdict forms. Nor is the judgment against NexL a basis for imposing liability against the Lifestyle defendants.
1. Pursuant to the court's previous order of July 26, 2010, we sustain respondents' objections to exhibits 111, 128, 131, 132 and 133 on the ground these documents were never admitted into evidence. The same objection applies to exhibits 147 and 148 but we receive them in order to facilitate our discussion of appellant's arguments.
2. Department of Transportation.
3. We agree with Lifestyle's point that the subject verdicts are a series of general verdicts, not special verdicts or general verdicts with special findings. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 624, 625; Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 539-540, overruled in part on other grounds by Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580; Chavez v. Keat (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1409, fn. 1.) 4. "[T]here is no difference between NexL and Lifestyle Custom Cycles in any way, shape, or form. . . ."
5. "Rest.3d, Torts: Products Liability provides that one engaged in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products who, in connection with the sale of a product, makes a misrepresentation of material fact concerning the product is subject to liability for harm to persons or property caused by the misrepresentation. The representation may be either fraudulent, negligent, or innocent. (Rest.3d, Torts: Products Liability § 9.)" (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 826, p. 1200.)