Cases of Interest

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California. October 23, 2024, modified November 21, 2024

There was no evidence of warning signs of theft or security problems. The Court of Appeal concluded that the special circumstances doctrine did not apply in this case. The court affirmed the summary judgment.

A court may not require a deponent to answer “legal contention” questions at his or her deposition, for example, to state all facts, list all witnesses, and identify all documents that support or pertain to a particular contention in the deponent’s pleadings. These questions, while entirely appropriate for written interrogatories, are not proper at a party’s deposition.

The case involved claims of strict products liability and negligence against Daimler Trucks following the death of the plaintiffs’ mother, Ortiz. She was killed when a commercial truck traveling over 55 miles per hour rear-ended her car at a red light. Raising design defect and negligent design claims, the plaintiffs alleged that Daimler Trucks should be held liable for their mother’s death because it failed to equip the truck with a collision avoidance system. That system warns drivers when it detects a collision risk with a stationary object, including stopped traffic, and can automatically stop the truck when the driver fails to act. Daimler Trucks manufactured that system, but not all trucks were equipped with it.

The court of appeals ruled that the trial court’s decision was erroneous and held that more information needed to be disclosed. Now, the trial court needs to have further proceedings to determine how much more disclosure is required.