Case Number: TC027151 Hearing Date: June 02, 2014 Dept: K

PIBOON BORRIBOONRATANA V. OTILIA VILLASENOR, No. TC 027151

(1) Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (“JNOV”), filed by Plaintiff Piboon Booriboonratana

(2) Motion for New Trial, filed by Plaintiff Piboon Booriboonrata

TENTATIVE RULINGS:

(1) DENY

(2) DENY

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Otilia Villasenor (“Defendant”) rear-ended Plaintiff Piboon Booriboonrata (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff sued for negligence. Following a four-day jury trial, the jury found Plaintiff to be 40% negligent and Defendant to be 60% negligent, and awarded Plaintiff a total of $5,600 in economic and non-economic damages—for a net award of $3,360.

Plaintiff has now filed three post-trial motions: (1) a JNOV motion on the ground of insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Plaintiff was negligent; and (2) a motion for new trial on the same ground.

(1) Motions for JNOV and new trial

“A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence in support” of it. (Grail Semiconductor, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., 225 Cal.App.4th 786, 794 (2014), citations and internal quotations omitted.) Substantial evidence review is a deferential review: A court must “resolve all conflicts in the evidence and all legitimate and reasonable inferences that may arise therefrom in favor of the jury’s findings and the verdict”; “must accept as true the evidence supporting the verdict, disregard conflicting evidence, and indulge every legitimate inference to support the verdict.”; and may “not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses.” (Scott v. Ford Motor Co., 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1499 (2014), citation and internal quotations omitted.)

A motion for a new trial on the grounds of insufficient evidence is warranted only if the court, sitting as a “13th juror,” independently concludes that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. (Barrese v. Murray (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 494, 503.) Unlike a court’s JNOV review, a court’s new trial review allows the court to “weigh the evidence,” “judge the credibility of the witnesses,” and “draw inferences contrary to those of the trier of fact.” (Cunningham v. Simpson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 301, 311; Barrese, 198 Cal.App.4th at 503.)

In both his JNOV and new trial motion, Plaintiff attacks the jury’s special findings that (1) he was negligent; (2) his negligence substantially contributed to the accident; and (3) he was 40% responsible for the accident. The facts adduced at trial indicate that Plaintiff stopped just before or somewhere inside a traffic intersection and that Defendant hit him from behind. In his motions, Plaintiff argues that he was not negligent because (1) he was not speeding prior to the collision; (2) he slowed in response to congested traffic; and (3) Defendant said she had 10 seconds and 12 car lengths in time to stop before hitting him. Plaintiff further contends that he did not violate Vehicle Code section 22400(a), which prohibits stopping that impedes or blocks traffic, because he stopped to avoid hitting the slowing cars in front of him.

The Court finds that “substantial evidence” supports the jury’s finding that Plaintiff was negligent. Although Plaintiff testified that traffic was slowing or stopped, and Officer Chad Brown testified that traffic in that area was usually sluggish at that time of day, both Defendant and Veronica Cortina (a witness) testified that traffic was either at a “normal flow” or “a little bit slow.” More to the point, the testimony was undisputed that Plaintiff stopped when the light was green for traffic his way. Although Plaintiff testified that he stopped to avoid slowing cars in front of him, both Defendant and Cortina testified that Plaintiff stopped suddenly and that no cars were in front of him. Because there was competent testimony that Plaintiff stopped suddenly and for no reason at a green light, a reasonably jury could find that Plaintiff was also negligent. The Court accordingly denies Plaintiff’s JNOV motion.

The Court also denies Plaintiff’s new trial motion. The Court has reviewed its notes from the trial, and recalls the demeanor of each of the witnesses who testified. Sitting as a thirteenth juror, the Court independently finds that the record supports a finding that Plaintiff was negligent for stopping without warning, which in turn left Defendant insufficient time to brake. The Court accordingly denies Plaintiff’s motion for new trial.