Case Name: Fernando Mauricio Jimenez Varillas v. Abel Julian Sanchez, Jr.
Case No.: 18CV328606

This is a negligence action arising from a collision between a car and a motorcycle. According to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff Fernando Mauricio Jimenez Varillas (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Abel Julian Sanchez, Jr. (“Defendant”) collided while traveling on northbound Highway 101 on the morning of September 20, 2016. Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when Defendant struck him with his car while changing lanes. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s conduct was negligent and caused him to suffer serious physical injuries. As a result, Plaintiff lost wages and incurred medical expenses. He seeks to recover “general damages,” “other economic damages,” medical expenses, and lost earnings.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s “claims for general damages…” on the basis Plaintiff is precluded under Civil Code section 3333.4 from recovering general damages as an uninsured rider. (Not. at p. 1:22–23.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

First and foremost, Defendant does not seek summary adjudication of a statutorily-authorized matter. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) authorizes summary adjudication of a claim for punitive damages. (Catalano v. Super. Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91, 97–98.) The statute does not authorize summary adjudication of individual items of damages. (DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 410, 422 [“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(1), does not permit summary adjudication of a single item of compensatory damage which does not dispose of an entire cause of action.”].) Defendant asks the Court to rule that one item of damages—general damages—is disallowed. He does not seek summary adjudication of the entire cause of action for negligence on the basis Plaintiff cannot establish the damages element of his claim. Thus, Defendant’s approach is impermissible.

Second, in presenting his supporting argument, Defendant appears to conflate distinct damages concepts and terminology. Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot recover general damages based on Civil Code section 3333.4, which precludes uninsured drivers and riders from recovering “noneconomic damages.” “In pristine legal parlance[,] general damages and special damages are pleading words.” (Andalon v. Super. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 600, 613.) “Damages which necessarily result from the act complained of are denominated general damages and may be proved under the ad damnum clause or general allegation of damage; while those which are the natural consequence of the act complained of, and not the necessary result of it, are termed special damages.” (Zvolanek v. Bodger Seeds (1935) 5 Cal.App.2d 106, 108.) “Special damage must be specially set forth in the complaint or the plaintiff will not be permitted to give evidence of it at the trial.” (Ibid.) The characterization of damages as either general or special is distinct from the characterization of damages as either economic or noneconomic. Economic damages are “objectively verifiable monetary losses including medical expenses, loss of earnings, burial costs, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, costs of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment and loss of business or employment opportunities.” (Civ. Code, § 1431.2, subd. (b)(1).) Noneconomic damages are “subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.” (Civ. Code, § 1431.2, subd. (b)(2).) And so, irrespective of whether a particular noneconomic loss typically falls into the category of general damages in a certain scenario, the terms general damages and noneconomic damages are not interchangeable. (See, e.g., J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 803.) Thus, Defendant’s reliance on Civil Code section 3333.4 for the broad and categorical proposition that no general damages are recoverable is misplaced.

In conclusion, Defendant does not seek summary adjudication of a statutorily-authorized matter and does not otherwise establish summary adjudication of an entire cause of action is warranted on the basis Plaintiff cannot prove the damages element of his negligence cause of action. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

The Court will prepare the order.