2010-00076817-CU-PA

Lonnie Lee vs. Stepan Kirchu

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Connolly, Thomas P.

Defendant Igor Lazaresku’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication is unopposed and is ruled on as follows:

This action arises out of an automobile accident. During the morning of March 28, 2009, Defendant Kirchu, while driving on Elverta Road in the County of Sacramento, California, attempted to pass of several vehicles. While Kirchu was passing plaintiff, Lonnie Lee, attempted a left hand turn. As a result, a serious impact collision occurred between the Audi, driven by Kirchu, and plaintiffs vehicle resulting in significant injury to plaintiff. Moving defendant Lazaresku contends that on the prior evening of March 27, 2009, he traded ownership of the car involved in the accident, his 1998 Audi A4 vehicle (Vehicle Identification No. WAUED28D5WA172523, California License No. 5CXW073) (“Audi”), with Kirchu’s Mazda vehicle [UMF 5, 20, 44, 59, Declaration of Igor Lazaresku, Para. 3]. However, Lazaresku did not have time to fill out the paperwork with the DMV prior to the accident.

Lazaresku is named only in the 2nd cause of action for Negligence and the Third Cause of action for Negligent Entrustment.

2nd cause of action Negligence

The Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied.
Defendant concedes that, as the registered owner of the Audi, he is liable for Kirchu’s negligent conduct. However, Lazaresku contends that pursuant to the provisions of California Vehicle Code section 17151, that ownership liability is limited to $15,000.00. [UMF 35, 74]. However, by admitting that he is liable for negligence under the vehicle

code, although limited to $15,000, defendant has not met his burden to show that plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim for negligence. Therefore, defendant has not met his burden of proof on this cause of action. Besides causes of action and affirmative defenses, a party may move to adjudicate only issues of duty or claims for punitive damages. The issue that “defendant is liable only for $15,000” is not one of these designated issues that may be adjudicated under CCP 437c(f)(1).

3rd cause of action Negligent Entrustment The Motion for Summary Adjudication is granted.
Lazaresku contends he did not have a duty to inquire with Kirchu regarding his
ability to drive, or if he had a valid driver’s license. He has presented evidence that he had no reason to believe that Kirchu was not a licensed driver as he had seen him driving a vehicle in the past. (UMF 70) Lazaresku does not recall checking to see if Kirchu had a driver’s license when they exchanged vehicles. (UMF 71) Lazaresku did not have time to transfer title of the Audi vehicle to Kirchu after the trade and prior to the occurrence of the incident. (UMF 72)

Based on the above facts, defendant has presented evidence that he did not breach a duty to plaintiff regarding negligent entrustment. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion, which is deemed a concession to the merits of this argument. The facts remain undisputed. Therefore the motion to summarily adjudicate the 3rd cause of action is granted.

The motion for summary judgment is denied.