MEDIATOR:GinaL.Genova,Esq.
MEDIATIONDATE:December6,2024
MEDIATIONTIME:2:00PM
I. INTRODUCTION
PeterPlaintiffhasfiledalawsuitagainstTommyTrustingforclaimsunderCalifornia CivilCodeSection1714(d)onclaimsofknowinglyfurnishingalcoholtoaminorandbeingthe proximatecauseoftheP Plaintiff’sinjuries.ThePlaintiffsentaletterdemandingtosettlebut thiswasnotaccepted.Discoveryhasconcludedandtherearenomotionspending.Atrialdate hasbeensetforMonday,December9,2024.
II. FACTS
A. TheParty
OnthenightofWednesdayduringfinalsweek,TommyTrustinghostedapartyathis residenceon6782PasadoRd(Tommy’sDeposition).HisinviteesincludedJack,his18-year-old brother,whowasintownvisiting, id Tommyhadpurchasedbeerandwineforhisguestsbut purchasedDr.Pepperforhisunderagebrother, id.TommyhadJackpromiseatthebeginningof thenightthathewouldnotdrinkorsneakanydrink, id.Hetookadditionalprecautionsby keepingthecoolerholdingthealcoholicbeveragesinhisviewandtellinghisinviteesthatJack wasunderageandnotallowedtodrink, id.Atsomepointduringthenight,Tommylefttheroom andwhenhecameback,hefoundJackholdingabeer id Jackstatesinhisdepositionthatthe beerwasgiventohimbyafriendofTommy’sandthathewaspressuredtodrinkbythesame (Jack’sDeposition).Hehadonlytaken“twosips”ofthebeerbeforebeingcaughtbyTommy, id TommysternlytoldJacktodumpthedrinkandlefttousetherestroom(Tommy’sdeposition). Hewasgoneforonlyafewminutesbeforereturningtothepartyandatthispoint,Tommyfound IVFootPatrolofficerscitingJackwithanMIP, id Afterreceivingthecitation,Jackaimlessly rodeoffonTommy’sbikebeforeTommycouldstophim, id.
B. TheAccident
Afterleavingtheparty,JackrodearoundtheroadsofIslaVista,whichwereunfamiliarto himasaguest(Jack’sDeposition).Herodearoundwithoutknowledgeofwherehewasgoing beforehecollidedwithPeterPlaintiffat6535ElNidoLnwithin14minutesafterreceivingthe MIPat10:08pm, id.JackclaimsthathedidnotseePeteruntilthemomentofimpactandthatthe streetwasdevoidofstreetlights, id.Peterwasdressedindarkclothesandattendingtoatext fromhisroommate(Peter’sDeclaration).Hewascominghomefromstudyingwithafriendat theManzanitadormsandcrossedtheroadmid-street,notpayingattentiontohissurroundings (LegalMemo).Thestreethadparkedvehiclesliningthecurbandwasdevoidofstreetlightsin additiontobeingaonewaystreet, id. Animageoftheaccidentsite(Figure1)isshownbelow Althoughthebikehadworkingbrakes,whichJackhadusedonafastturnpriortotheaccident, hewasunabletoreactquicklyenoughtoavoidhittingP.Plaintiffduetolackofvisibilityandthe surpriseelementofapedestrianonaroadwhereheassumedbicycleswouldhadtherightofway (Jack’sDeposition).Theaccidentleftbothinjuredandtheyweretakentothehospitalat 10:22pm(AmbulanceDispatch).AsubsequentdrugscreeningconductedonJackrevealeda BACof0%andnosignsofintoxication(DrugScreenResults).
III. LEGALARGUMENT
TommyisnotliableforPeter’sinjuriesashedidnotknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack andevenifhedid,theallegedfurnishingwouldnotbeconsideredaproximatecausetothe Plaintiff’sinjuries.TommyhasimmunityfortheclaimsunderCaliforniaCivilCode§1714(c), whichstatesthat“Exceptasprovidedinsubdivision(d),nosocialhostwhofurnishesalcoholic beveragestoanypersonmaybeheldlegallyaccountablefordamagessufferedbythatperson,or forinjurytothepersonorpropertyof,ordeathof,anythirdperson,resultingfromthe consumptionofthosebeverages”(CaliforniaCivilCodeSection§1714(c)).CaliforniaCivil Code§1714(d)statesthefollowing”“Nothinginsubdivision(c)shallprecludeaclaimagainsta parent,guardian,oranotheradultwhoknowinglyfurnishesalcoholicbeveragesathisorher residencetoapersonwhomheorsheknows,orshouldhaveknown,tobeunder21yearsofage, inwhichcase,notwithstandingsubdivision(b),thefurnishingofthealcoholicbeveragemaybe foundtobetheproximatecauseofresultinginjuriesordeath”(Cal.CivilCode§1714(d). Tommyagreestoallelementsexcepttwo-hestronglydeniesknowinglyfurnishingalcoholto JackandthatitwastheallegedproximatecauseofPeter’sinjuries.Thefollowingsections provideanalysisonthesetwoelementsanddemonstratewhytheyarenotmetusingthefacts statedabove.
A. Tommydidnotknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoaminor.
ItisclearfromhisstatementthatTommydidnotknowinlgyfurnishalcoholtoJackathis residence.Asstatedinhisdeposition,TommysetanintentionthathedidnotwantJacktodrink athispartyandtookseveralprecautionstodoso.HemadeJackpromisethathewouldnotsneak anydrinksinadditiontokeepingthecoolerofalcoholicbeveragesrightinfrontofhimand makingsuretotellhisothergueststhatJackwasunderage.ThesefactsareconsistentwithJack’s deposition.Fromthisalone,itisevidentthatT.Trustinghadnointentiontogiveorevenallow JacktodrinkthealcoholhepurchasedbecausehepurchasedDr.PepperforJackandwasthe onlybeveragethatTommyhimselfgavetoJacktodrink..Furthermore,hesternlytoldJackto dumpthebeerimmediatelyafterfindingout.IfTommywasimpartialorconducivetohisbrother drinking,hewouldnothavetakentheseprecautionsandalsowouldnothavegonefurthertoask
himtodumpthedrinkthathealreadyhad.Therefore,Tommydoesnotknowinglyfurnishany alcoholtoJackandthiselementofthecodeisnotmetforTommytobeheldliableforP Plaintiff’sinjuries.
B. TrustingwasnottheproximatecauseofandnotliableforPlaintiff’sinjuries
Uponinspectionofthefactssurroundingtheaccident,itisevidentthateveninthe instancethatT.TrustinghadknowinglyfurnishingalcoholtoJack,thiswouldnothavebeena proximatecausetoP Plaintiff’sinjuries.InorderforliabilitytoapplytoTommy,thecourt wouldhavetosaythathisfurnishingofbeertoJackwastheproximatecauseofPeter’sinjuries.
Rutherford v Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997)16Cal.4th953statesthatCaliforniacourtsusethe “substantialfactor”testtodeterminewhetherdefendant'sactwastheproximatecauseof plaintiff’sinjuries.Thesubstantialfactor(inthiscase,furnishingalcohol)mustbemorethan trivialinordertobeconsideredaproximatecause.Trivialmeans“trifling;inconsiderable;of smallworthorimportance(Black’sLawDictionary).”Thedrugscreenresultrevealednosigns ofintoxication,soitisevidentthatifJackwasinattentive,itisnotduetointoxicationbutrather otherfactors,suchasthedistressofreceivinganMIPIncombinationwiththis,wehaveP. Plaintiff’snegligenceofhissurroundingsthatJackcouldnothavebeenawareof.Peterwas dressedindarkclothesandcrossingmid-streetonaone-wayroaddevoidofstreetlightswhere thecurbwaslinedwithparkedvehicles.Consideringthedarkenvironmentunderwhichthe collisionoccurredandPeter’snegligencetohissurroundings,itisnotunlikelythattheaccident mayhaveoccurredregardlessofJack’sintoxicationlevels.Relativetothenumberof environmentalfactorsstated,Tommy’sallegedfurnishingisnotmorethanatrivialfactorinthe causesofP.Plaintiff’sinjuries.Therefore,theallegedfurnishingisnotaproximatecauseto Peter’sinjuriesandrelievesTommyofliabilityforthesame.
IV. CONCLUSIONANDDEMAND
ThedefenserequeststhatT Trustingbedismissedfromthecaseinlightofthefactsof thecase.P.PlaintiffhassuedforclaimsunderCaliforniaCivilCodeSection1714(d)which,in orderforTommytobeheldliable,hewouldhavehadtoknowinglyfurnishalcoholtoJack.In addition,thisfurnishingwouldalsoneedtobeaproximatecausetoP Plaintiff’sinjuries.As neitherelementismet,TommycannotbeheldliableforPlaintiff’sinjuries.Thedefensewill assume10%ofliabilityforfurnishingandrequeststhatthesettlementbebetweenP Plaintiffand JackTrustingbasedonevaluationofthefactsofthecollisioncase.
